— .vr— •  A^" 


XTbe  "Clniversits  of  CbicaQO 


A  HISTORICAL  EXAMINATION  OF 
SOME  NON-MARKAN  ELE- 
MENTS IN  LUKE 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE   SCHOOL   OF  ARTS 

AND  LITERATURE   IN   CANDIDACY   FOR  THE   DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

(graduate  divinity  school:    department  of  new  testament 
and  early  christian  literature) 


BY 


ERNEST  WILLIAM  PARSONS 


Reprinted  from 

Historical  and  Linguistic  Studies 

Second  Series,  Vol.  II,  Part  6 

{CoPyrighled  1914,  by  the  University  of  Chicago) 


XTbe  'dniversit^  ot  CbicaQO 


A  HISTORICAL  EXAMINATION  OF 
SOME  NON-MARKAN  ELE- 
MENTS IN  LUKE 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED   TO   THE   FACULTY   OF   THE   GRADUATE   SCHOOL    OF   ARTS 

AND  LITERATURE   IN   CANDIDACY  FOR  THE   DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF   PHILOSOPHY 

(graduate  divinity  school:    department  of  new  testament 
and  early  christian  literature) 


BY 

ERNEST  WILLIAM  PARSONS 


Reprinted  from 

Historical  and  Linguistic  Studies 

Second  Series,  Vol.  II,  Part  6 

(Copyrighted  tQi4,  by  the  University  of  Chicago) 


f  "^  ^- 


^a^ 


n 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.S.A. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PACE 

Introduction'.    A  Statement  of  the  Purpose  and  Method  of  This  Essay       g 

I.  Ant  Examination  of  the  Material  Contained  in  Luke  9:51 — 18: 14 

I.  The  General  Missionary  Interest 16 

II.  The  Samaritan  Interest 24 

III.  The  Reciprocal  Opposition  of  Pharisees  and  Christians     .     .       30 

IV.  The  Emphasis  on  Discipleship 34 

V.  The  Ascetic  Interest 38 

VI.  The  Teaching  on  Exorcism 41 

VII.  The  Prayer  Element 43 

VIII.  The  Miracle  Element 46 

IX.  The  Christology 49 

X.  The  Progress  of  Christianity 54 

XI.  Other  Indications  as  to  Time  and  Place 55 

11.  An  Examination  of  the  Non-Markan  Material  Contained  in  Luke, 
Chaps.  3-8 

I.  The  Sermon  on  the  Plain 63 

II.  The  Remainder  of  the  Material 69 


523] 


Grateful  acknowledgment  is  made  by  the  author  of  his  indebtedness 
to  all  his  instructors.  He  wishes  especially  to  express  his  gratitude  to 
Associate  Professor  Shirley  Jackson  Case,  whose  interest  and  counsel 
have  stimulated  and  aided  him  in  his  task. 


525] 


INTRODUCTION 

The  discovery  and  recognition  of  the  practical  or  functional  element 
in  the  writings  of  both  Old  and  New  Testaments  have  produced  results 
of  great  value  for  the  interpretation  of  these  books.  As  long  as  the 
approach  was  from  the  standpoint  of  absolutism — that  is,  as  long  as 
the  statements  which  the  writings  contained  were  considered  valid 
and  true  per  se,  as  well  as  authoritative  and  equally  applicable  to  all 
time  and  to  every  conceivable  circumstance — so  long  did  formidable 
difficulties  arise  on  almost  every  page  the  scholar  examined.  It  is  not 
claimed  that  the  application  of  the  principle  of  pragmatic  interest  has 
solved  all  the  problems  or  laid  all  the  specters,  but  it  is  contended  that 
no  scientific  interpretation  is  possible  where  the  immediate  circumstances 
of  the  writing,  with  regard  both  to  the  writer  and  to  those  to  whom  the 
document  was  directed,  are  ignored. 

A  brief  review  of  some  of  the  New  Testament  wTitings  will  serve  to 
illustrate  and  estabUsh  the  position.  The  correspondence  of  Paul  with 
the  Corinthian  church  presents  almost  innumerable  difficulties  if  an 
attempt  is  made  to  interpret  it  apart  from  a  definite  problem-situation. 
As  long  as  the  thought  of  universal  validity  was  maintained  the  difficult 
passages,  such  as  speaking  with  tongues,  eating  of  meats,  the  sugges- 
tions regarding  marriage,  the  conduct  of  women  in  public  worship, 
either  were  passed  by  lightly,  received  fanciful  explanations,  or  were 
rendered  grotesque  by  an  attempted  application  of  them  unchanged 
to  the  difiFering  conditions  of  another  age.  The  recognition  of  the  definite 
purposes  and  aims  of  this  correspondence  not  only  has  cleared  up  many 
perplexing  statements,  but  has  enhanced  the  religious  value  of  the  letters 
for  modem  life.  The  reality  of  the  problems  of  that  day,  the  primitive 
ideas,  the  crude  yet  splendid  attempts  at  readjustment  of  old  and  new 
on  the  part  of  this  church,  as  well  as  the  sanity  and  insight  of  the  great 
apostle,  emerge  with  considerable  clearness  when  viewed  from  the  strictly 
historical  side. 

The  strange  atmosphere  of  the  Colossian  letter,  especially  in  the 
sphere  of  christological  thought  and  statement,  is  exceedingly  difficult 
apart  from  a  knowledge  and  recognition  of  the  definite  aim  which  the 
writer  had  before  him.  The  differences  between  this  letter  and  those 
generally  acknowledged  to  be  Pauline  are  so  marked  as  to  have  occa- 
sioned grave  questioning  as  to  whether  the  apostle  could  have  produced 
527]  9 


10  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

it.  The  recognition  of  the  incipient  heresy  with  its  peculiar  character- 
istics against  which  the  writer  so  stoutly  contended  has  furnished  the 
key  to  the  situation,  and,  although  we  may  not  know  all  we  wish  to  know 
concerning  the  sect  at  Colossae,  enough  is  known  to  explain  why  the 
theological  thinking  of  the  apostle  manifests  this  rather  sharp  turn. 

The  Roman  letter  is  but  poorly  understood  until  we  remember  the 
bitter  conflicts  and  bitterer  experiences  which  had  fallen  to  the  lot  of 
the  author  while  he  labored  in  the  East.  His  work  practically  com- 
pleted there,'  this  missionary-statesman,  with  visions  of  western  worlds 
to  conquer,  in  which  campaign  Rome  as  a  base  of  operations  was  almost 
indispensable,  pens  the  document  which  is  to  introduce  him  to  the  chvirch 
in  that  city  and  forestall  those  opponents  who  hung  upon  him  so  tena- 
ciously.   Approached  in  this  way,  much  of  the  letter  becomes  luminous. 

Few,  if  any,  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  have  given  rise 
to  so  many  baffling  questions,  have  suffered  so  many  fantastic  interpre- 
tations, as  that  which  closes  the  Canon.  The  history  of  its  interpreta- 
tion is  full  of  interest^  but  that  is  not  our  concern  here.  It  was  not  until 
indications  of  a  definite  situation  were  discovered  and  expressions  which 
disclosed  the  purpose  of  the  writer  in  connection  with  this  situation 
were  noted  that  any  real  progress  in  the  comprehension  of  the  Apocalypse 
was  made.  If  this  book  is  read  in  the  light  of  the  Domitian  persecution, 
the  rare  faith  and  fine  courage  of  the  author  bear  a  message  which  cannot 
fail  to  be  of  efiect. 

The  First  Epistle  of  John  is  in  danger  of  sad  misunderstanding 
unless  it  is  recognized  that  it  was  written  to  combat  certain  errors  which 
the  author  considered  serious.  Hostility  to  Docetic  Gnosticism  which 
was  developing  along  the  lines  of  aristocracy  and  libertinism  was  with- 
out doubt  one  of  the  determining  factors  in  the  composition  of  this 
letter.  Not  to  remember  this  and  not  to  allow  for  it  is  to  miss  the 
original  meaning  of  its  composer. 

So  far  little  exception  will  be  taken  to  our  statements.  In  fact 
it  would  not  be  a  difficult  matter  to  show  that  all  the  epistolary  litera- 
ture of  the  New  Testament  was  produced  by  problem-situations  more 
or  less  definite.  But  what  of  the  gospels — those  fountain-heads  of  our 
knowledge  of  Jesus  ?  Has  the  pressure  of  circumstances  been  operative 
there?  Do  these  gospels  with  their  resemblances  and  differences  arise 
from  definite  situations  which  have  determined  their  material    and 

'  Rom.  15:23. 

^  See  von  Dobschiitz,  The  Eschatology  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  39-60;  H.  B.  Swete, 
The  Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  pp.  cciii-ccxv;  R.  H.  Charles,  Studies  in  the  Apocalypse. 

528 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  11 

colored  its  presentation  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  ?  It  is  coming  to  be, 
if  it  is  not  already,  generally  recognized  that  this  is  true  in  a  striking 
way  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The  points  of  dissonance  and  disagreement 
between  it  and  the  Synoptics  are  seen  to  be  very  largely  the  result  of 
definite  situations  and  aims  which  controlled  its  production.  To  take 
but  one  example:  the  representation  of  John  the  Baptist  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  with  its  peculiar  and  striking  dissimilarities  to  the  Synoptic 
picture  is  wonderfully  well  explained  as  a  polemic  against  a  Johannine 
sect  which  preferred  claims  for  its  founder  that  made  him  a  rival  of  the 
Christ.'  It  can  scarcely  be  gainsaid  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  a  prag- 
matic work,  and  in  the  light  of  this  admitted  fact  it  must  be  interpreted.^ 
As  to  the  Synoptics,  the  answer  is  not  so  clear  nor  so  unanimous. 
There  have  been  statements  as  to  the  purposes  of  these  gospels,  but  they 
are  general  purposes  only  and  throw  but  little  light  on  many  of  the 
problems.  It  is  true  that  Luke  gives  a  statement  of  purpose  in  his 
preface,^  but  it  carries  us  only  a  short  distance  on  our  way.  Of  Mark 
some  are  content  to  say  that  he  sets  forth  the  public  career  of  Jesus 
with  little  or  no  conscious  argumentative  purpose;'^  others,  however, 
detect  a  more  or  less  definite  purpose.  One  is  justified  in  saying  that 
it  was  written  for  purposes  of  propaganda  and  not  as  critical  history. 
With  regard  to  Matthew  it  is  generally  said  that  his  aim  is  to  show  that 
Jesus  is  the  Old  Testament  Messiah  founding  the  kingdom  which  after 
Jewish  rejection  is  thrown  open  to  all.  Sometimes  a  definite  situation 
is  suggested,  but  rarely  with  assurance.  It  is  in  the  very  nature  of 
things  that  there  should  be  a  greater  amount  of  indefiniteness  in  dis- 
covering the  exact  purpose  of  the  Synoptics,  assuming  for  the  moment 
that  they  have  more  than  a  general  one.  In  the  first  place,  the  narrative 
and  biographical  material  which  they  use  serves  at  times  to  make  the 
discovery  of  purpose  difficult.  The  charm  of  the  narrative  diverts  the 
attention  and  only  by  careful  searching  can  such  purpose  be  detected. 
In  the  second  place,  these  writers  are  using  for  a  later  period  stories 
of  a  past  or  passing  generation,  and  sayings  that  ostensibly  were  spoken 
by  a  person  of  a  past  generation  in  view  of  situations  which  confronted 
him  at  the  time  of  speaking.     The  matter  is  further  complicated  by  the 

'  As  to  the  existence  of  such  a  sect,  cf.  Acts  19:1-5,  and  p.  44. 

^  Note  the  specific  aim  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  stated  in  20:31.  For  a  state- 
ment of  the  aims  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  cf.  E.  F.  Scott,  The  Fourth  Gospel,  pp.  65- 
103;  Baldensperger,  Der  Prolog  des  vicrlen  Evangeliums. 

3  Luke  1 : 1-4. 

*  Cf.  Ernest  D.  Burton,  A  Short  Introduction  to  the  Gospels,  pp.  33-40. 

529 


12  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

use  of  sources  which  in  all  probability  themselves  took  form  in  whole 
or  in  part  in  response  to  immediate  needs  in  the  early  Christian  com- 
munities. It  is  not  required  for  the  purposes  of  this  essay  to  trace  this 
matter  farther  here.  The  pragmatism  of  the  Synoptics,  while  highly 
probable  and  generally  admitted,  is  discoverable  only  after  a  patient 
and  somewhat  minute  examination.  But  its  discovery,  even  with  what 
lack  of  definiteness  may  attach  to  it,  has  been  of  value  and  will  be 
increasingly  so  in  the  determination  of  origin  and  date. 

The  point  of  the  foregoing  partial  survey  has  been  merely  to  show  the 
existence,  and  that  generally  of  a  specific  and  definite  purpose  in  the 
New  Testament  writings.  They  were  not  written  merely  because  an 
author  wished  to  produce.  They  did  not  aim — in  nearly  all  cases — to  be 
historical  works,  at  least,  primarily.  They  were  rather  writings  pressed 
out  in  the  heat  of  controversy,  struck  out  by  the  blows  of  the  militant 
young  religion  as  it  met  its  foes  and  thrust  back  its  frontiers,  and  some- 
times called  forth  by  the  pain  and  mystery  of  persecution.  That  is  to 
say,  they  were  produced  in  some  definite  historical  situation  and  to  meet 
some  specific  need  which  is  reflected  more  or  less  clearly  on  their  pages. 

If  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  as  they  now  stand  are  found  on 
examination  to  manifest  practical  aims  which  help  in  their  interpreta- 
tion and  elucidation,  is  there  any  valid  reason  against  carrying  back  the 
process  to  the  sources  of  these  books  where  such  sources  are  discoverable  ? 
Will  it  not  yield  the  same  assistance  in  regard  to  these  sources  as  it  has 
yielded  in  regard  to  the  books  themselves?  This  has  been  done  in  a 
measure  in  the  case  of  the  Apocalypse.  The  remains  of  an  older  Jewish 
apocalypse,  some  Christian  apocalyptic  reflecting  the  time  of  Nero,  and 
later  additions  from  the  time  of  Domitian,  have  been  thought  by  some 
to  be  discoverable  there.  But  we  are  in  a  better  position  in  the  matter 
of  the  discovery  of  sources  with  respect  to  the  First  and  Third  Gospels 
than  with  respect  to  any  other  books  in  the  Canon.  The  use  of  Mark 
by  each,  the  statement  of  Luke  himself,  and  the  comparison  of  the  non- 
Markan  sections  of  these  gospels  yield  us  results  which  cannot  be 
obtained  elsewhere  in  our  field.  There  is  no  need  to  detail  or  even  to 
outline  the  work  that  has  been  done  on  the  literary  relationships  of  the 
Synoptics.  Our  concern  is  not  with  that.  The  purpose  of  this  essay 
is  to  submit  some  of  the  non-Markan  material  of  the  Third  Gospel  to 
an  examination  from  the  historical  and  problem-situation  standpoints, 
with  a  view  to  discovering  the  interests  which  lay  behind  the  formation 
of  the  tradition  and  thus  to  gain  a  knowledge  of  the  provenance  of  such 
tradition  and  the  date  at  which  it  probably  took  form. 

530 


SOME    NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  13 

Too  often  the  approach  to  the  study  of  the  gospels  is  from  the  stand- 
point and  the  days  of  Jesus.  This  is  done  even  by  those  who  are  investi- 
gating in  a  historical  spirit  and  who  are  endeavoring  by  historical  method 
to  interpret  the  documents.  Is  there  not  at  least  as  much  to  be  said 
in  favor  of  an  approach  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Christian  community 
in  the  period  of  gospel-making  when  these  traditions  were  taking  shape, 
or  assuming  new  forms,  either  orally  or  in  writing?  Is  it  not  strictly 
historical  and  psychologically  correct  to  consider  the  gospel  sources 
in  the  light  of  the  pressing  and  insistent  needs  of  the  primitive  Chris- 
tian communities  ?  It  is  incredible  that  the  circumstances  which  caused 
the  tradition  to  be  preserved  and  emphasized  should  not  color,  and 
possibly  determine,  the  selection  and  form  of  the  products  of  their 
literary  and  pedagogical  activity. 

It  is  with  the  hypothesis  that  the  problem-situation  is  a  valuable" 
touchstone  for  interpretation  that  the  approach  to  this  material  is  made. 
The  method  pursued  will  be  to  interrogate  the  various  sections  of  the 
material  with  a  view  to  discovering  the  purpose  which  it  was  designed 
to  serve  and  to  find  the  situation  into  which  it  fits  with  the  greatest 
degree  of  probability.  It  is  claimed  that  if  certain  sections  manifest 
aptitude  to  serve  certain  purposes  and  such  purposes  which  needed 
serving  can  be  located  in  time  and  place  we  shall  be  justified  in  giving 
grave  consideration  to  the  possibility  of  those  sections  having  arisen 
in  oral  or  literar}'  form  at  that  time  and  in  that  location.  Moreover, 
if  a  considerable  number  of  sections  show  marked  ability  to  function 
at  a  similar  place  and  about  the  same  period,  and  if  we  find  this  material 
existent  in  compact  and  solid  form,  it  will  be  considered  that  there  is  a 
strong  presumption  in  favor  of  considering  this  material  either  a  docu- 
ment or  a  selection  from  a  document.  On  the  other  hand,  if  in  the 
course  of  our  examination  of  the  material  certain  sections  of  it  should 
disclose  such  a  diversity  of  problem-situations  and  characteristics  as 
to  call  for  a  change  of  provenance,  or  if  the  controlling  purposes  appear 
to  be  essentially  different,  and  if  such  diversity  should  continue  in  a 
fairly  consistent  way,  it  will  be  considered  a  valid  argument  for  the 
differentiation  of  these  sections  into  separate  sources.  This  difference 
need  not  extend  to  every  detail,  for  whatever  the  provenance  or  situa- 
tion, there  would  of  necessity  be  some  common  elements  through  com- 
munity of  general  subject  and  aim. 

Two  matters  call  for  consideration  here.  This  discussion  does  not 
concern  itself  with  the  question  of  the  historicity  of  the  statements 
recorded  in  the  material  it  considers.     There  will  be  little  inclination 

531 


14  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

to  deny  that  our  gospels  are  interpretations  of  Jesus — his  person, 
teaching,  and  works.  The  fact  that  they  are  interpretations,  even  inter- 
pretations arising  amid  stress  of  special  situations  to  meet  which  they 
assumed  approximately  their  present  form,  does  not  of  itself  involve 
a  departure  from  essential  historicity.  A  reflective  interpretation  may 
be  as  accurate  as  an  unreflective  one.  It  may  even  be  possible  that  a 
reflective  interpretation  may  give  a  closer  approximation  to  the  real 
significance  of  the  events.' 

Neither  does  the  literary  aspect  of  the  synoptic  problem  intimately 
concern  us  here.  This  study  may  have  a  bearing  on  that  question,  but 
it  approaches  the  material  unhampered  by  any  theory.  While  this  is 
true,  it  must  be  said  that  the  two-document  theory  is  assumed  to  be  not 
proven.  The  second  source,  Q,  is  on  the  basis  of  that  hypothesis 
assumed  to  be  a  document.  Upon  how  precarious  a  foundation  this 
assumption  rests  the  various  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  recon- 
struct it  clearly  show.  Much  work  on  the  problem  has  been  vitiated 
by  too  rigid  an  adherence  to  it.  It  is  at  least  as  probable,  in  view  of 
the  phenomena  of  the  First  and  Third  Gospels,  that  Matthew  had 
sources  independent  of  Luke,  and  vice  versa,  while  these  sources  may 
have  possessed  common  material.  Is  it  not  possible  that  in  the  crystal- 
lization of  tradition  common  material  may  have  found  itself  in  juxta- 
position with  peculiar  material?  The  possibility  of  the  emergence  of 
similar  problem-situations  in  various  places  and  at  slightly  different 
times  must  be  considered  in  the  attempt  to  explain  the  variations  of 
Matthew  and  Luke.  It  is  an  assumption  largely  gratuitous  that  all 
the  common  material  in  Matthew  and  Luke  must  have  come  from  the 
same  immediate  source.  Our  approach  to  the  study  of  the  non-Markan 
Luke  will  be  unhampered  by  the  question  of  its  relation  to  Matthew. 
The  material  will  be  taken  as  it  stands  in  Luke  and  examined  by  the 
method  outlined  above. 

Those  parts  of  the  Third  Gospel  which  will  come  under  our  considera- 
tion are:  (i)  that  block  of  material  extending  from  9: 51  to  18: 14;  (2)  the 
sections  peculiar  to  Luke  contained  in  3:7 — 8:3.  These  latter  sections 
do  not  appear  consecutively,  being  broken  by  Markan  material,  but  they 
are,  nevertheless,  rather  clearly  defined. 

It  may  be  urged  as  an  objection  to  the  following  treatment  that  it 
goes  on  its  own  way  with  a  degree  of  complacency  and  does  not  take 
into  consideration  the  work  that  has  been  done  by  others  and  the  con- 
clusions which  they  have  reached.     It  is  quite  true  that  there  is  an 

'  Cf.  Cambridge  Biblical  Essays,  pp.  292-94. 

532 


SOME    NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS    IN   LUKE  15 

apparent  ignoring  of  much  that  has  been  said  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 
but  this  is  not  in  any  way  due  to  a  lack  of  appreciation  of  the  excellence 
of  the  work  done  or  of  the  very  great  value  of  its  results.  It  has  been 
thought  advisable  to  avoid  the  literary  question  as  far  as  possible  as 
tending,  on  the  one  hand,  to  obscure  the  historical  argument,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  increase  the  length  of  this  essay  beyond  its  proper 
limits.  It  is  not  for  a  moment  denied  that  the  literary  aspect  of  the 
problem  has  most  important  bearings  on  the  matter;  the  desire  has 
been  to  present  the  other  phase.  As  to  any  failure  to  consider  work 
done  from  the  historical  point  of  view,  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  almost 
all  of  it,  if  not  all,  has  a  different  approach,  and  thus  it  has  been  deemed 
wise  to  follow  the  main  thread  of  the  thought  without  deviating  to 
discuss  other  conclusions.  The  wisdom,  or  the  reverse,  of  this  proceed- 
ing must  be  left  to  the  individual  judgment.  In  a  very  few  cases  excep- 
tion has  been  made  and  an  opposing  position  considered.  To  have 
discussed  or  even  to  have  noticed  the  various  matters  of  this  kind  would 
have  unduly  beclouded  what  the  writer  intended  should  be  his  chief 
interest. 

A  further  objection  may  be  that  there  is  underlying  the  argument 
of  this  essay  an  assumption  that  a  very  important,  if  not  a  determining, 
reason  for  the  preservation  and  promulgation  of  traditions  concerning 
Jesus  is  the  ability  to  serve  a  situation  obtaining  after  his  departure. 
This  assumption,  it  may  be  charged,  is  seriously  challenged  by  the  fact 
that  the  gospel-writers,  working  at  a  later  date,  used  material  which 
ex  hypothesi  took  form  to  meet  an  earlier  condition.  The  reply  to  such 
a  charge  will  be  along  several  lines:  the  persistence  in  the  early  church 
of  situations  generally  similar  to  those  which  the  formulation  was  first 
designed  to  meet,  the  greater  freedom  of  adjustment  and  selective  power 
in  the  period  when  the  tradition  was  oral  and  first  applied  to  the  problems 
of  the  community,  the  increasing  disinclination  to  interfere  with  apostolic 
tradition,  and  the  fact  that  in  some  cases  alterations  due  to  needs  existent 
at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  the  gospels  can  be  detected.  Moreover, 
is  there  not  underlying  such  a  criticism  an  assumption  that  there  was  a 
pre-resurrection  tradition  of  more  or  less  fixity?  Is  it  not  nearer  the 
fact  to  say  that  the  literature  is  a  product  of  the  movement  and  bears 
the  marks  of  the  problems  amid  which  it  arose  and  for  the  solution  of 
which  it  was  designed  ? 


533 


I.    AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  MATERIAL  CONTAINED  IN 
LUKE  9:51—18:14 

We  shall  first  pass  in  review  that  mass  of  material  which  is  found 
in  Luke  9:51 — 18:14,  and  which  is  known  by  various  designations, 
such  as  "The  Great  Interpolation,"  "The  Perean  Section,"  etc.  In 
this  material  the  points  of  contact  with  Mark  are  reduced  to  a  minimum 
and  the  peculiarly  Lukan  material  is  predominant.  As  already  stated, 
the  purpose  of  examining  this  material  is  to  discover  the  interests  of 
the  early  church  which  were  served  by  it  and  to  determine  as  accurately 
as  possible  their  time  and  place. 

I.      THE   GENERAL  MISSIONARY   INTEREST 

It  does  not  require  a  very  close  study  of  the  section  before  us  to  show 
that  one  of  the  interests  served  by  it  is  the  general  missionary  activity 
of  the  Christian  community.  The  statement  of  the  appointment  of 
the  Seventy,  the  instructions  given  to  them,  the  classes  among  which 
they  labored  are  in  close  alignment  with  it.^  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  function  of  these  messengers  is  purely  a  missionary  one.  There  is 
no  word  of  their  selection  for  instruction  by  Jesus  as  there  is  of  the 
Twelve.  They  are  appointed  to  give  a  specific  message  and  to  do  a 
specific  work  (vs.  9).  The  first  matter  that  impresses  one  in  reading 
this  account  is  the  number — seventy.  It  appears  nowhere  else  in  con- 
nection with  the  work  of  Jesus,  and  it  is  rather  surprising  to  find  that 
such  a  number  of  competent  evangelists  were  available.  The  number 
seventy,  which  varies  with  seventy-two,  is  a  natural  number,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  a  somewhat  artificial  one.  When  the  expanding  interests 
of  the  church  called  for  assistants  to  the  Twelve,  we  find  the  seven 
deacons,  the  seventy  (seventy-two)  evangelists.  In  the  predilection 
of  the  Jews  for  such  numbers  is  foimd  one  reason  for  the  choice,  while 
the  analogy  of  the  seventy  (seventy-two)  elders  who  counseled  with 
Moses  might  be  adduced  as  another.  The  number  suggests  a  time  when 
the  evangelizing  task  of  the  church  had  become  too  great  for  the  Twelve. 
The  emphasis  placed  upon  the  house  in  this  tour  of  the  Seventy  suggests 
the  important  part  played  by  the  house  in  primitive  Christianity." 

'  Luke  10: 1-24. 

'  Cf.  Acts  2:46;  5:42;  8:3;  9:325.;  chap.  10;  12:12;  Col.  4:15;  Philem.. 
chap.  2. 

16-  [534 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS    IN    LUKE  17 

The  impression  regarding  Jesus  is  that  very  much  of  his  work  was  done 
in  connection  with  the  synagogues  and  in  the  open  air.  Assuredly 
some  of  his  activity  was  in  houses,  just  as  some  of  the  early  Christian 
activity  was  in  synagogues,  but  the  emphasis  on  the  house  is  suggestive. 
A  rather  striking  phrase  meets  us  in  this  account — "son  of  peace." 
In  early  Christian  thought  peace  was  one  of  the  possessions  of  the  true 
Christian.  Xapts  koI  dprivq  is  a  frequent  combination.  Is  a  "son  of 
peace"  a  Christian,  and  is  the  evangelist  to  search  out  the  house  of  such 
a  one  as  a  place  from  which  to  work  ?  These  verses  are  quite  intelligible 
from  the  standpoint  of  a  statement  of  regulations  of  primitive  Chris- 
tian evangelists.  A  Christian  house  is  to  be  the  base  of  operations  and 
the  prohibition  of  the  long  Jewish  salutations  is  to  prevent  secondary 
matters  from  interfering  with  that  which  is  of  supreme  importance. 
The  injunction  to  "eat  such  things  as  are  set  before  you"  looks  in  the 
direction  of  a  relaxation  of  the  customs  regarding  clean  and  unclean. 
It  points  to  a  time  when  the  work  of  Christian  evangelists  brought  them 
into  intimate  contact  with  others  than  rigid  Jews.  Was  this  the  case 
in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  ?  The  command  to  wipe  off  the  dust  from  their 
feet  against  a  rejecting  city  is  very  Jewish,  but  indicates  that  the  activity 
of  these  men  extended  to  others  than  orthodox  Jews.  The  Jew  is  said 
to  have  shaken  off  the  dust  of  Samaria  when  he  left  its  unclean  soil. 
The  verses  containing  the  woes  on  the  cities  have  a  twofold  tendency. 
There  is  a  distinctly  favorable  inclination  to  the  extra-Palestinian  cities 
represented  by  Tyre  and  Sidon,  while  the  woes  pronounced  on  the 
Jewish  cities  seem  to  indicate  a  rejection  of  the  Christian  message  by 
the  Jews  and  to  reflect  a  time  when  the  Christians  would  be  interested 
in  recalling  any  word  of  Jesus  which  represented  the  anger  of  God  as 
falling  on  the  Jews  for  such  rejection. 

The  verses  17-24  reflect  a  stage  when  the  missionary  work  of  the 
church  has  met  with  some  success  and  some  failure.  The  exorcism  of 
demons — the  spectacular  part  of  the  work  of  the  church — has  made 
the  greater  impression  and  threatens  to  engross  the  attention  of  the 
Christians  to  the  exclusion  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  aspects  of  their 
task.'  This  is  very  primitive  and  points  to  a  time  when  the  gifts  of 
the  Spirit  were  still  a  unique  possession.  The  partial  failure  is  shown 
in  vss.  21  ff.  The  message  of  the  preacher  has  not  met  with  approval 
and  acceptance  on  the  part  of  the  influential  classes,  but  it  is  in  the  main, 
if  not  exclusively,  by  the  lower  and  humble  people  that  its  appeal  has 
been  answered.    The  word  of  Jesus  that  it  was  the  will  of  the  Father 

*  Vss.  17-19. 

535 


18  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

that  "babes"  should  receive  the  revelation  would  be  of  immense  value 
in  such  a  situation.  The  statement  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians'  might 
be  considered  here. 

These  indications  tend  to  show  that  this  tradition  serves  interests 
which  would  emerge  when  the  church  began  systematically  to  expand 
the  scope  of  her  activities.  This  expansion  necessitated  the  use  of  a 
larger  number  of  evangelists  than  the  Twelve,  instructions  for  mis- 
sionaries in  their  new  work,  and  explanations  of  the  phenomena  attendant 
upon  their  work. 

The  parable  of  the  Supper  contained  in  14:15-24  manifests  the 
missionary  interest  in  a  most  striking  manner.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  supper  which  is  prepared  represents  the  kingdom  with 
its  blessing.  The  invitation  has  been  extended  to  those  with  whom 
the  host  had  more  or  less  intimate  relations,  people  who  might  be 
expected  to  appreciate  the  honor  and  eagerly  to  embrace  the  opportunity. 
Their  astounding  conduct  could  not  fail  to  arouse  the  ire  of  the  despised 
and  rejected  benefactor.  He  in  turn  meets  the  situation  with  conduct 
equally  strange,  in  that  he  sends  his  servants  to  gather  from  the  most 
unlikely  places — the  lanes  and  streets — people  who  had  hitherto  seemed 
to  be  at  the  farthest  remove  from  those  who  were  originally  invited  to 
enjoy  the  hospitality  and  generosity  of  the  lord  of  the  supper.  Still 
more  striking  is  the  command  to  furnish  his  table  with  guests  even  to 
the  extent  of  constraint.  The  keen  disappointment  and  righteous 
indignation  of  the  master  is  revealed  by  the  stern  statement  that  the 
refusal  of  his  invitation  brings  absolute  exclusion  from  the  joys  of  the 
feast. 

The  most  probable  interpretation  of  this  parable  is  that  it  sets 
forth  the  rejection  of  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  and  its  blessings  by  the 
Jews  and  their  acceptance  by  the  Gentiles.  The  situation  reflected 
would  be  that  of  the  early  church  in  those  days  when  she  was  feeling 
the  obligation  to  press  beyond  the  limits  which  had  hitherto  circum- 
scribed her  endeavors,  and  to  give  the  message  of  redemption  to  people 
whom  she  had  hitherto  not  considered  eligible  and  who  had  been  looked 
upon  as  having  no  claim  on  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom.  The  forces 
which  brought  about  such  a  feeling  of  obligation  are  not  to  be  discussed 
here,  but  the  very  essence  of  the  gospel  on  its  religio-ethical  side  was 
universalism.  It  is  very  evident  that  part  of  the  early  narrow,  restricted 
community  of  Jewish  Christians  did  break  the  "insidious  bar"  and 
"follow  the  gleam."    But  the  very  existence  of  the  parable  in  its  present 

'  I  Cor.  1 :  26  ff. 

536 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  19 

form  shows  that  this  step  was  not  taken  without  serious  questioning 
as  to  its  propriety.  There  was  a  question  of  tremendous  import  to  be 
answered:  How  could  it  be  that  the  heritage  of  the  chosen  people  was 
to  be  taken  away  and  given  to  those  "without  the  pale"  ?  In  the  time 
of  Paul  this  question  was  insistent  and  the  mighty  mind  of  the  apostle 
grappled  with  it.  His  solution  is  contained  in  the  letter  to  the  Romans, 
chaps.  9-1 1.  How  important  a  question  it  was  and  how  bitterly  con- 
tested is  seen  with  some  clearness  in  the  situations  discussed  in  Acts, 
chaps.  10,  II,  15,  and  in  the  long  struggle  between  Paul  and  the  Judaizers. 
This  parable  explains  the  matter  by  two  implicit  statements:  (i)  Those 
to  whom  the  invitation  was  j&rst  extended,  namely,  the  Jews,  had 
wantonly  refused  it.  (2)  By  a  direct  command  of  the  master  of  the 
feast  the  invitation  is  given  to  those  without. 

The  situation  thus  reflected  is  that  of  the  early  days  of  missionary 
activity,  when  the  barriers  which  had  kept  the  church's  endeavor 
entirely  within  the  Jewish  nation  were  being  broken  down  and  the  gospel 
was  being  carried  to  the  Gentiles.  How  great  an  advance  and  how 
perplexing  a  question  this  was  we  shall  not  comprehend  unless  we  suc- 
ceed in  appreciating,  in  a  measure,  the  strong  and  deep  Jewish  convic- 
tions of  the  early  Palestinian  Christians,  especially  those  of  Jerusalem. 
The  foundations  of  their  universe  were  being  removed  and  it  was 
inevitable  that  intense  and  bitter  opposition  should  arise.  If  in  this 
situation  the  missionary  leaders,  men  with  keener  insight  and  broader 
horizons  than  their  fellows,  could  adduce  a  tradition  that  Jesus  had 
taught  them  that  this  would  be  the  line  of  development — if  the  mis- 
sionary endeavor  of  the  church  could  be  reinforced  by  an  ipse  dixit 
of  the  Master — it  would  be  of  immense  value  and  importance.  Such 
a  tradition  we  have  in  the  verses  under  discussion. 

The  inimitable  parables  of  the  fifteenth  chapter  come  under  this 
general  missionary  interest.  The  introductory  verses  to  the  parables 
which  show  how  Jesus  associated  intimately  with  publicans  and  sinners, 
and  which  contain  the  Pharisaic  protest  against  this  intimacy,  can  easily 
be  understood  as  rendering  service  in  such  a  situation  as  that  in  which 
Peter  is  described  as  finding  Himself  in  Acts  io:io;  11:3  ff.  If  the 
Master  had  eaten  with  sinners  the  disciple  is  not  above  him.  This 
would  furnish  a  most  powerful  argument  in  favor  of  the  broader  and  more 
generous  spirit  which  was  reaching  out  with  the  gospel  to  those  beyond. 
The  parables  themselves,  so  well  known,  bear  directly  on  missionary 
endeavor.  The  ratio  of  ninety-nine  to  one  is  not  of  national  significance; 
to  consider  it  as  such  would  be  to  make  a  mere  incident  of  the  parable 

637 


20  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

the  important  matter.  The  parables  of  the  Lost  Sheep  and  Coin  are 
not  polemics  against  the  Jews  nor  arguments  for  the  Gentile  mission 
as  such.  They  are  rather  arguments,  the  more  potent  because  so  appo- 
site, setting  forth  the  urgency  of  saving  the  lost,  and  the  "imperative" 
of  missionary  activity.  If  there  is  significance  in  the  ratio  of  the  num- 
bers, it  is  to  show  the  value  of  such  work,  even  if  it  appears  insignificant 
in  results.     It  is  the  qualitative  rather  than  the  quantitative  emphasis. 

The  third  parable,  that  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  has  a  similar  point  if 
we  go  no  farther  than  the  twenty-fourth  verse.  The  point  is  made  in  a 
somewhat  different  manner,  but  it  is  the  same  thought  that  is  empha- 
sized, namely,  the  supreme  necessity  and  value  of  the  work  of  saving 
the  lost.  The  joy  of  the  father  and  the  glad  willingness  of  the  reception 
of  the  wayward  one  reproduced  in  the  attitude  of  the  missionaries  and 
Christians  generally  would  be  of  no  little  value  in  their  work.  If  the 
Father  so  receives  the  repentant  sinner,  surely  his  followers  must  not 
refuse.  The  incident  of  the  elder  brother  appears  to  have  another 
interest.  Does  it  reflect  the  opposition  to  missionary  endeavor  which 
was  much  in  evidence  in  the  early  Christian  community  according  to 
our  sources  ?  The  visit  of  Peter  to  Caesarea  was  followed  by  a  summons 
to  explain  his  attitude  and  conduct.^  It  might  well  be  that  the  story  of 
the  elder  brother  was  an  answer  to  this  hostility  to  the  broader  sphere 
of  activity  and  the  more  generous  spirit  which  was  manifesting  itself 
in  the  missionary  wing  of  the  church. 

So  much  for  the  interest  of  the  church's  general  missionary  activity. 
The  questions  now  confront  us:  At  what  place  and  at  what  time  did 
such  situations  obtain  as  seem  to  be  reflected  in  the  sections  which  have 
just  been  discussed  ?  There  are  three  phases  of  the  church's  missionary 
endeavor  set  forth:  (i)  In  the  sending  of  the  Seventy  with  the  accom- 
panying instructions  there  is  little,  if  anything,  to  show  the  area  to  which 
their  labors  were  to  be  confined.  It  is  doubtless  a  Palestinian  mission — 
the  whole  atmosphere  is  Jewish — but  whether  it  is  a  mission  which 
includes  Gentiles  or  is  limited  to  Jews  is  not  easy  to  determine.  We  are, 
however,  safe  in  saying  that  it  represents  a  missionary  activity  in  a 
territory  beyond  that  which  the  Twelve  were  able  to  comprehend. 
The  questions  as  to  the  authority  of  those  who  were  not  of  the  Twelve 
and  the  conduct  of  missionaries  were  such  as  must  early  have  created 
no  little  difficulty.  In  what  place  would  a  pronouncement  on  such 
questions  be  made?  Undoubtedly  in  Jerusalem.  Jerusalem  was  not 
only  the  headquarters  for  Christian  activity,  it  was  also  the  seat  of  the 

'Acts  ii:i  ff. 

538 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  21 

Twelve  with  whatever  authority  accrued  to  them.  Such  a  position 
of  leadership  and  prominence  is  shown  in  Acts  4:32-35;  6:1  fif.;  8:14. 
Moreover,  we  are  told  that  the  apostles  remained  there  after  the  perse- 
cution had  scattered  the  members  of  the  Jerusalem  communities  abroad 
throughout  the  land.'  That  it  would  be  from  their  circle  or  from  their 
community  that  such  a  pronouncement  on  this  new  activity  would 
issue  is  favored  by  several  things:  (i)  The  apostles  were  the  channels 
of  tradition  and  from  them  must  come  the  words  of  Jesus.  (2)  The 
position  of  the  Jerusalem  church  with  its  apostolic  leaders  in  the  council 
of  Acts,  chap.  15.^  The  position  of  James  in  that  church  is  to  be 
explained  on  the  ground  of  his  relationship  to  Jesus.  That  Jerusalem 
was  and  remained  the  center  of  Christian  activity  for  a  considerable 
time — that  she  was  the  mother-church  to  which  all  others  looked  with 
a  certain  esteem  and  deference — is  witnessed  by  the  attitude  of  Paul  in 
the  controversy  just  referred  to  and  by  his  earnest  desire  to  win  the 
favor  of  the  Jerusalem  church,  as  shown  by  his  conciliatory  efforts  in 
gathering  contributions  and  his  endeavor  to  avoid  occasions  of  offense.^ 
(3)  There  was  no  other  center  which  was  of  sufficient  importance  or 
enjoyed  sufiScient  prestige  to  enable  it  to  speak  at  such  a  time. 

As  to  the  time  at  which  such  a  situation  obtained,  we  are  dependent 
on  the  account  in  the  Acts.-*    With  the  exception  of  the  Pentecostal 

'  Acts  8:1.  *  Cf .  also  Gal.,  chaps,  i,  2. 

3  E.g.,  the  assumption  of  a  vow,  Acts  21 :  23  ff. 

•»  A  criticism  might  issue  against  some  of  the  arguments  advanced  in  this  discus- 
sion to  the  effect  that  too  much  reliance  is  placed  on  the  Acts  of  the  .\postles  and  too 
large  an  assumption  made  of  its  historical  accuracy.  Such  a  point  would  not  seem  to 
the  writer  to  be  well  taken.  It  is  but  a  general  accuracy  that  is  assumed.  The 
arguments  rest,  not  on  details  in  Acts,  but  on  movements  and  tendencies  which  seem 
to  bear  the  marks  of  verisimilitude  and  which  in  some  cases  have  corroborative 
testimony.  For  example,  there  may  be  reason  for  questioning  some  of  the  details 
of  the  imprisonment  of  the  apostles  as  recorded  in  Acts  5:17  ff.,  but  that  by  no  means 
necessarily  invalidates  the  general  statement  of  imprisonment  and  that  at  the  hands 
of  the  officials  to  whom  it  is  ascribed.  Similarly,  some  features  of  the  Samaritan 
mission  may  fail  to  carry  conviction  of  accuracy  without  involving  a  refusal  to  accept 
the  general  fact  of  missionary  expansion  to  Samaria.  In  general  outline  we  must 
depend  upon  Acts  for  our  knowledge  of  the  lines  along  which  Christianitj''  moved  in 
its  onward  march,  and  the  statements  of  the  book  regarding  the  large  features  of 
development  and  expansion  seem  worthy  of  credence. 

The  criticism  might  carry  farther  to  the  point  of  objecting  to  what  might  appear 
to  be  a  very  different  attitude  toward  the  two  books  generally  admitted  to  proceed 
from  the  same  author.  It  may  be  said  that  the  historicity  of  the  .\cts  of  the  .\postles 
is  assumed  while  that  of  the  Third  Gospel  is  tacitly  challenged.  The  first  point  has 
just  been  considered.    Already  it  has  been  pointed  out  (p.  13)  that  this  essay  does 

539 


22  HISTORICAL  AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

outburst  (and  that  is  really  not  an  exception)  the  activity  of  the  early 
Christians  as  set  forth  in  chaps.  1-7  of  this  book  was  confined  entirely 
to  Jerusalem.  It  is,  of  course,  more  than  probable  that  isolated  Chris- 
tians and  perhaps  isolated  communities  of  Christians  existed  outside 
Jerusalem  at  this  period.  There  was  such  a  group  at  Damascus  very 
soon  after  the  dispersion  of  Christians  from  Jerusalem  (Acts  9: iff.). 
But  so  far  as  our  sources  take  us,  there  was  no  definite  or  widespread 
propaganda  outside  Jerusalem  until  after  the  death  of  Stephen.  At 
that  time  the  church  which  was  at  Jerusalem  suffered  persecution  and 
"they  were  all  scattered  abroad  throughout  the  regions  of  Judea  and 

Samaria,  except  the  apostles They  therefore  that  were  scattered 

abroad  went  everywhere  preaching  the  word."  There  seems  to  be  no 
good  reason  for  doubting  the  general  accuracy  of  this  statement.  We 
know  that  the  church  did  break  beyond  the  Jerusalem  limits  and  such 
an  incident  as  that  described  has  the  marks  of  verisimilitude.  When 
the  young  organization  embarked  on  such  a  project  as  this  there  would 
be  insistent  need  of  an  authoritative  basis  for  such  work  to  encourage 
missionaries  and  to  silence  objections,  as  well  as  to  give  directions  which 
should  govern  the  new  enterprise.  In  such  a  situation  emphasis  upon 
the  tradition  of  the  mission  of  the  Seventy  would  be  natural. 

Passing  to  the  second  phase,  that  represented  in  the  parable  of  the 
Supper,  we  have  the  missionary  situation  after  the  appeal  has  been 
made  to  the  Jews  and  has  met  with  but  a  scant  measure  of  success.  One 
of  the  interesting  phenomena  of  the  development  and  spread  of  early 
Christianity  is  the  comparative  silence  regarding  its  progress  in  Palestine 
apart  from  Jerusalem.  Were  the  bonds  of  Judaism  too  strong  to  be 
broken,  the  patriotic  desire  for  a  world-ruling  kingdom  too  deeply 
rooted  to  be  removed  ?  But  the  early  Christian  missionaries  were  Jews 
and  to  them  the  refusal  of  the  gospel  by  their  compatriots  and  its  accept- 
ance by  others  constituted  a  problem  of  the  most  serious  kind.  Amid 
such  questionings  the  parable  of  the  Supper  would  serve  as  a  solution 
and  would  perform  a  function  beyond  that  which  it  could  exercise  in 
any  other  situation  we  know.  Again,  we  see  that  the  probable  place 
of  issue  is  Jerusalem,  and  the  time  would  be  the  early  part  of  the  Gentile 

not  concern  itself  with  the  question  of  historicity,  but  is  engaged  in  another  task. 
Regarding  such  a  tacit  challenging  the  following  is  evident  upon  even  slight  reflection: 
The  fact  that  certain  traditions  owe  their  preservation  and  literary  formulation  to 
the  necessity  of  meeting  needs  in  the  early  Christian  community  in  no  way  necessarily 
impairs  the  essential  historicity  of  these  traditions.  The  presence  or  extent  of  modi- 
fication induced  by  the  exigencies  of  the  time  when  they  received  oral  or  written  form 
is  another  problem. 

540 


SOME    NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  23 

mission.  That  is  to  say,  it  comes  from  the  period  when  the  Palestinian 
Christians  were  gradually  reaching  out  with  the  gospel  to  those  who  were 
not  their  fellow-countrymen  before  the  Gentile  activity  of  Paul  and  the 
Antioch  church.' 

The  third  phase,  the  fifteenth  chapter,  comes  from  a  situation  very 
similar  to  that  just  outlined,  namely,  when  the  question  of  contact 
with  those  who  were  unclean  from  a  Jewish  point  of  view  was  before 
the  community  and  when  the  value  and  importance  of  mission  work 
required  elucidation  and  emphasis.  As  in  the  case  of  the  previous 
sections,  the  place  where  this  question  would  become  acute  was  Jerusalem 
and  the  time  would  be  at  the  dawn  of  the  church's  wider  mission. 

Thus  we  have  these  three  sections,  strongly  missionary  in  character, 
falling  in  tolerably  well  with  situations  and  needs  which  we  know  to 
have  existed  in  the  Jewish-Christian  community  at  Jerusalem  in  the 
very  early  years  of  its  life.  It  is,  of  course,  mipossible  to  fix  accurately 
the  date,  but  the  period  35  A.D.-50  a.d.  would  meet  the  facts  fairly 
well.  The  year  35  a.d.  is  an  approximate  date  for  the  commencement 
of  missionary  endeavor,  and  by  50  a.d.  the  emphasis  was  being  shifted 
from  the  general  question  as  to  the  propriety  of  a  Gentile  propaganda 
to  the  narrower  question  of  the  admission  of  Gentiles  to  Christian  status 
and  privileges  apart  from  the  observance  of  certain  Jewish  requirements. 
As  to  the  formulation  of  such  traditions  at  this  time  as  against  their 
previous  existence  and  emphasis  one  cannot  but  wonder  at  the  tardiness 
of  the  apostles  in  moving  out  to  larger  spheres  if  they  possessed  the 
definite  declarations  regarding  mission  work  which  now  appear  in  our 
gospels.    Moreover,  if  the  universalism  of  some  of  the  traditions  was 

'  Cf.  Acts  8:26  ff.;  chap.  10;  11:19-26.  It  may  be  urged  that  the  parable  of 
the  Supper  would  function  as  well  after  the  Gentile  mission  of  Paul  as  in  the  first  break 
of  the  Christians  with  the  Jews  and  the  corresponding  turning  of  the  Gentiles.  That 
is  to  say,  the  Jewish  Christians  always  intended  to  go  to  the  Gentiles  with  the  gospel, 
but  not  in  Paul's  way,  and  this  is  a  reflection  of  that  later  phase  of  the  perplexing  prob- 
lem. Against  this  may  be  placed  the  real  inner  struggle  of  the  Jerusalem  Christians 
when  the  first  overtures  to  the  Gentiles  were  made  by  Peter  and  others.  It  is  highly 
probable  that  a  tradition  such  as  this  would  rise  in  the  keenness  of  the  initial  contest. 
Secondly,  there  was  little  remaining  of  the  Gentile  question  after  Paul  had  done  his 
work.  His  success  was  too  overwhelming.  Whatever  was  the  actual  result  of  the 
Jerusalem  conference,  the  intensity  of  the  problem  of  a  Gentile  mission  could  never 
be  the  same  afterward.  Moreover,  the  general  Jerusalemic  character  of  the  material 
in  this  whole  section  tells  against  the  later  formulation  of  this  paragraph.  The  center 
of  missionary  activity  and  missionary  struggle  was  transferred  from  Jerusalem  to 
Greek  soil  after  the  apostles  left  that  city,  and  this  greatly  decreases  the  probability 
of  such  a  tradition  arising  in  this  latter  environment. 

541 


24  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

existent,  one  cannot  fail  to  be  amazed  at  the  difficulties  which  Paul 
and  others  had  to  overcome  in  practicing  it.  Is  it  not  at  least  probable, 
in  view  of  the  historical  fact  of  the  confinement  of  apostolic  and  Chris- 
tian work  to  Jerusalem  for  a  number  of  years,  that  it  was  the  essence  of 
the  movement  itself  combined  with  the  external  situation  which  drove 
Christianity  out  to  a  wider  conquest  ?  In  such  a  case  it  is  quite  com- 
prehensible that  these  traditions  were  given  form  in  the  place  and  at  the 
time  when  the  need  for  them  was  most  acute. 

II.      THE   SAMARITAN  INTEREST 

There  is  another  interest  found  in  the  material  under  consideration 
which  might  have  been  subsumed  under  the  previous  section,  but  it  is 
of  such  a  definite  character  and  of  such  importance  that  a  separate  treat- 
ment has  been  thought  proper.  It  is  what  we  may  call  the  Samaritan 
interest.  Nowhere  else  in  the  Synoptics  do  the  Samaritans  com.e  into 
prominence  as  in  this  peculiarly  Lukan  material.  In  fact,  Samaria 
or  the  Samaritans  are  mentioned  but  once  in  the  Synoptics  outside  the 
section  Luke  9: 51— 18: 14.  This  is  in  Matt.  10: 5,  where  an  injunction 
is  given  to  the  twelve  disciples  to  avoid  any  Samaritan  city.  In  the 
Fourth  Gospel  two  rather  curious  references  to  the  Samaritans  appear. 
The  fourth  chapter  is  for  the  most  part  concerned  with  the  conversation 
of  Jesus  and  the  Samaritan  woman.  A  very  striking  parenthesis 
occurs  in  vs.  9:  "For  the  Jews  have  no  dealings  with  the  Samaritans." 
In  a  passage  still  more  striking'  the  Jews  are  represented  as  saying  to 
Jesus:  "  Say  we  not  well  that  thou  art  a  Samaritan  and  hast  a  demon  ? " 
In  this  Lukan  material,  however,  the  Samaritans  occupy  a  position  which, 
while  not  large  absolutely,  is  of  great  importance  by  reason  of  contrast 
and  by  reason  of  the  striking  character  of  the  passages  containing  the 
allusions.  These  passages  are:  (i)  9: 51-56,  in  which  the  unwillingness 
of  the  Samaritans  of  a  certain  village  to  receive  Jesus  and  extend  him 
hospitality  calls  forth  from  the  "Boanerges,"  on  the  one  hand,  a  desire 
for  vengeance,  and  from  Jesus,  on  the  other  hand,  a  mild  rebuke  of  his 
disciples'  impetuosity;  (2)  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  10: 25  £f.; 
and  (3)  the  story  of  the  healing  of  the  ten  lepers,  only  one  of  whom,  a 
Samaritan,  returned  to  express  gratitude  for  the  benefits  received, 
17:11  £f.  That  these  people,  so  thoroughly  neglected  elsewhere  in  the 
Synoptics,  should  occupy  such  a  position  of  prominence  in  these  nine 
chapters  surely  merits  our  attention.  The  probable  significance  of  the 
phenomenon  we  shall  discuss  later. 

'John  8:48. 

542 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  25 

We  must  turn  aside  for  a  moment  to  consider  the  relationship  and 
feelings  which  existed  between  the  orthodox  Jews  and  the  Samaritans. 
There  is  little  reason  to  doubt  the  essential  historicity  of  the  story  of 
the  origin  of  the  Samaritan  people  as  given  in  II  Kings  17 :3  ff.,  although 
it  is  probable  that  more  than  one  Assyrian  king,  possibly  three,  figured 
in  the  importations  of  colonists.  The  population  resulting  from  the 
deportation  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Northern  Kingdom  and  the  intro- 
duction of  foreigners  from  various  conquered  countries  to  take  their 
places  was  known  by  the  name  of  Samaritan.  However  strong  a  strain 
of  Israelitish  blood  was  retained  by  the  resulting  mixed  race,  it  was 
inevitable  that  the  Jews  who  prided  themselves  on  the  maintenance  of 
purity  of  blood  should  despise  and  look  with  contempt  on  those  who 
persisted  in  calling  themselves  bsnil";  ''73,  without  possessing  the  right 
so  to  do.    This  contempt  is  shown  by  the  rabbinical  term  for  this  people, 

The  exclusive  policy  of  the  rigid  Jews  would  compel  them  to  refuse 
recognition  to  a  people  of  mixed  blood,  whose  religion  was  under  grave 
suspicion  of  containing  foreign  elements.^  The  old  cleavage  between 
North  and  South  would  easily  revive  to  deepen  the  difference,  and  the 
politico-religious  barrier  thus  formed  would  be  hard  to  surmount. 
How  formidable  this  barrier  was  is  seen  in  the  building  of  the  temple 
on  Mount  Gerizim,  to  which  the  Samaritans  could  have  been  driven 
only  after  being  convinced  that  reconciliation  was  impossible.  The 
most  frequent  references  to  the  relations  which  existed  between  the 
Jews  and  the  Samaritans  are  found  in  Josephus,  and  while  one  does  not 
receive  the  statements  without  caution,  there  is  little  reason  to  doubt 
that  he  represents  the  general  attitude  with  fair  accuracy.  In  the  inter- 
biblical  literature  there  are  two  references  to  the  Samaritan  people 
which  indicate  the  hostility  and  contempt  which  a  rigid  Jew  felt  toward 
them.  The  first  is  in  the  Wisdom  of  Ben  Sirach:^  "With  two  nations 
is  my  soul  vexed  and  the  third  is  no  nation:  They  that  sit  upon  the 
mountain  of  Seir,  and  the  Philistines,  and  the  foolish  people  that  dwelleth 
in  Shechem."  In  the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  (Levi, 
chap.  7)  we  have  the  statement:  "From  this  day  shall  Shechem  be 
called  the  city  of  fools."  The  testimony  of  the  rabbinical  literature  is 
not  uniform,  but  there  are  not  lacking  indications  that  with  many  of 
the  Jews  the  hostility  was  an  abiding  one.     In  some  of  its  Samaritan 

'  Cf.  Cuthah,  II  Kings  17:24. 

*Cf.  II  Kings  17:335- 

3  5o:25£f. 

543 


26  HISTORICAL  AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

passages  the  New  Testament  gives  an  interesting  light  on  the  matter. 
The  statement  of  Matthew/  in  which  Jesus  is  represented  as  forbidding 
the  missionary  apostles  to  go  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans,  but  to 
"go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,"  sets  forth  strongly 
the  difference  which  was  made  between  the  two  peoples.  The  fact  that 
such  a  word  was  allowed  to  remain  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  at  the  time 
of  the  composition  of  Matthew  is  extremely  suggestive  in  this  regard. 
The  refusal  of  the  Samaritans  to  receive  Jesus  and  his  followers,  as  shown 
in  Luke,*  manifests  the  same  attitude.  The  Johannine  references  in 
the  fourth  chapter,  where  the  woman  practically  refuses  a  draught  of 
water  to  Jesus  on  the  ground  that  she  is  a  Samaritan  while  he  is  a  Jew, 
followed  by  the  explanatory  parenthesis  mentioned  above,  "For  the 
Jews  have  no  dealings  with  [ask  no  favors  of ( ?)]  the  Samaritans,"  show 
that  the  distrust  and  dislike  were  deep  and  strong.  The  last  reference 
in  the  gospels  is  that  in  which  the  term  is  applied  to  Jesus  himself,  and 
expresses  the  strongest  contempt  and  antipathy.^  These  statements 
in  the  gospels  can  be  explained  on  no  other  ground  than  the  existence 
of  an  intensely  bitter  feeling  between  those  who  considered  themselves 
of  pure  Jewish  blood  and  faith  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  central  district 
of  Palestine.'* 

In  the  outline  of  the  spread  and  development  of  early  Christianity 
as  presented  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  find  that  no  Christian  work 
was  done  among  the  Samaritans  before  the  dispersion  which  followed 
upon  the  persecution  of  the  Jerusalem  church.  This  is  the  case  in  spite 
of  the  stated  command  of  the  risen  Lord  to  be  witnesses  in  Judea  and 
Samaria,  and  so  forth.s  In  fact,  when  such  work  was  undertaken  it 
was  in  a  way  as  great  an  innovation  as  the  Gentile  mission.  The  easy 
way  in  which  the  spread  of  the  gospel  among  the  Samaritans  is  recorded 
in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Acts  gives  no  hint  of  the  difficulties,  internal  and 
external,  which  beset  the  Samaritan  mission.  Apparently  it  was  a 
triumphant  conquest  on  the  part  of  Philip  and  the  apostles  Peter  and 
John.  Practically  nothing  is  known  of  the  Samaritan  Christians  in 
any  organized  way  and  it  is  probable  that  the  terrible  experiences  of 
67  A.D.-70  A.D.  shattered  any  such  work.  But  that  the  Samaritan 
people  as  such  were  not  evangelized  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  massacre 

110:5.  =9:5ifF.  3  John  8:48. 

■•As  to  the  persistence  of  feehng  between  Jews  and  Samaritans,  see  Schiirer, 
Geschichie  des  jiidischen  Volkes,  4.  Aufl.,  II,  18-23;  ^^^  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of 
Jesus  Christ,  Div.  II,  Vol.  I,  pp.  5-8. 

5  Acts  1:8. 

544 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  27 

of  the  Galileans  under  the  procuratorship  of  Cumanus,  48-52  a.d.' 
The  references  in  the  gospels  show  that  with  the  Christians  the  antip- 
athy persisted,  which  would  be  very  doubtful  if  such  a  sweeping 
Christianizing  had  taken  place. 

It  would  seem  to  be  inevitable  that,  when  the  Christian  missionaries 
went  on  Samaritan  soil  with  the  gospel  message  and  offered  the  blessings 
of  the  kingdom  to  the  people  toward  whom  the  orthodox  Jews  enter- 
tained such  feelings,  such  a  procedure  would  meet  with  strong  opposition. 
A  study  of  the  early  chapters  of  Acts  shows  clearly  that  the  Christians 
at  Jerusalem  did  not  for  some  time  differentiate  themselves  from  the 
orthodox  Jews  save  on  the  question  of  the  messiahship  of  Jesus.^  The 
whole  of  the  controversy  over  circumcision  ultimately  rests  on  this 
fact.  This  being  so,  it  must  have  seemed  to  strict  Jews,  in  spite  of 
points  of  contact  between  Jews  and  Samaritans,  a  casting  of  the  chil- 
dren's bread  to  dogs  to  give  the  promises  to  the  schismatics  of  the 
middle  country.  The  name  of  the  Samaritan  missionary — Philip — 
and  his  appointment  among  the  Seven  raises  the  interesting  question 
whether  or  not  he  was  a  Hellenist  and  possibly  of  more  liberal  views  than 
many  of  the  Palestinian  Jews. 

Bearing  in  mind  these  two  facts,  (i)  the  steady  and  persistent 
dislike  which  obtained  between  Jews  and  Samaritans  and  which  Chris- 
tianity did  not  easily  obliterate  from  the  Jewish  heart,  (2)  that  nowhere 
in  the  New  Testament  apart  from  the  eighth  chapter  of  Acts  (this  is 
shadowed  by  the  Simon  Magus  story)  are  the  Samaritans  mentioned 
with  approval  except  in  this  peculiarly  Lukan  section,  we  proceed  to 
discover  what  interest  could  prompt  or  be  served  by  such  a  departure 
from  the  otherwise  constant  attitude.  It  would,  of  course,  be  easy 
to  say  that  it  was  the  universalism  of  Jesus  manifesting  itself.  But 
there  are  grave  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  a  solution. 

The  allusions  themselves  are  instructive.  The  first  one^  recognizes 
the  general  attitude  of  the  Samaritans  toward  the  Jews  and,  conversely, 
that  of  the  Jews  toward  the  Samaritans.  The  occasion  of  the  hostility 
is  said  to  be  the  purpose  of  Jesus  to  go  to  Jerusalem.  Undoubtedly  the 
apostles  thought  they  were  showing  true  loyalty  to  their  Master  and 
true  devotion  to  their  nation  in  their  request  for  vengeance,  and  the 
rebuke  of  Jesus  in  favor  of  the  despised  enemies  must  have  sounded 
strange  in  their  ears.  Yet  it  is  a  very  mild  form  of  approval,  if  that 
be  the  correct  term,  which  the  passage  shows.    The  parable  of  the  Good 

'  Josephus,  Ant.,  XX,  118-36;  B.J.,  II,  232-46. 

»  Acts  3:1  ff.,  chap.  13;   s:i2(?),  30.  ^  Luke  9:51-56. 

545 


28  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

Samaritan  sets  this  people  in  a  much  better  light.  The  story  and  its 
setting  are  too  well  known  to  require  repetition.  It  will  not  be  disputed 
that  the  central  teaching  of  the  story  is  that  of  neighborliness,  but  that 
does  not  entirely  explain  the  selection  of  the  Samaritan  as  its  shining 
example.  It  is  true  that  the  Samaritan  had  the  advantage  of  proximity 
in  being  chosen  for  such  a  purpose,  but  the  point  could  have  been  made 
equalty  well,  if  not  better,  had  a  Gentile  been  pressed  into  service.  It 
is  not  easy  to  think  that  the  three  classes  of  men  mentioned — priest, 
Levite,  and  Samaritan — merely  chanced  to  be  selected  to  illustrate  the 
point.  There  is  a  suspicion  that  there  is  underlying  a  plea  for  the 
people  whose  representative  could  rise  higher  in  the  scale  of  mercy  and 
generous  service  than  the  religious  leaders  of  the  self-complacent  Jews. 
The  Samaritan  appears  here  in  strong  contrast  with  those  who  were 
supposed  to  typify  the  best  in  Israel's  life,  and  the  inference  is  inevitable 
that  such  a  people  could  not  be  wholly  bad.  The  third  instance  is  also 
a  case  in  which  the  Samaritan  is  set  in  the  best  possible  light  by  contrast. 
Of  the  ten  who  had  been  the  recipients  of  the  blessing  of  healing  only 
one  cared  to  return  to  thank  his  benefactor.  Here  the  Samaritan  is 
not  the  model  of  service  and  neighborliness  as  above,  but  he  stands  forth 
as  an  example  of  gratitude.  The  marked  contrast  with  the  others, 
ostensibly  Jews,  is  expressed  in  the  words,  "Were  there  none  found  that 
returned  to  give  glory  to  God,  save  this  stranger  ?  "  The  three  allusions 
seem  to  be  in  climactic  order  of  favorableness,  but  it  would  not  be  well 
to  press  such  a  point.  It  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  we  have 
here  traditions  formulated  or  emphasized  to  meet  the  same  general 
situation.  Can  we  discover  a  situation  which  would  be  met  by 
them? 

The  previous  discussion  makes  it  evident  that  it  was  the  inception 
and  process  of  the  Samaritan  mission.  The  very  fact  that  Jews  brought 
the  new  message  could  not  fail  to  arouse  antagonism  among  the  Samari- 
tans. To  them  the  new  propaganda  would  be  little  more  than  an 
attempt  to  induce  them  to  acknowledge  the  purity  and  superiority  of 
the  rigid  Jews.  It  does  not  require  a  great  stretch  of  the  imagination 
to  conceive  that  some  villages  showed  decided  opposition  to  the  mis- 
sionaries, thus  discouraging  them  and  arousing  the  slumbering  fires 
of  hatred.  In  such  a  case  what  more  powerful  argument  could  be  used 
than  the  story  of  the  Samaritan  churlishness,  the  refusal  of  Jesus  to 
execute  vengeance,  and  the  calm  turning  from  one  village  to  another  ? 
It  is  an  inimitable  piece  of  work,  looked  at  from  the  standpoint  of  what 
might  easily  be  the  pressing  needs  of  the  Samaritan  mission. 

546 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  29 

But  all  the  hostility  did  not  emanate  from  Samaria.  The  Jerusalem 
Christians,  some  of  them  at  least,  were  far  too  strict  Jews  to  look  on 
this  proffer  of  the  kingdom  to  these  semi-aliens  with  equanimity.  Very 
easily  could  mutterings  against  the  movement  arise,  and  even  positive 
criticism.  With  what  tremendous  force  could  a  word  of  the  Master 
be  used,  if  one  could  be  obtained,  in  such  a  situation!  Here  we  have 
the  Good  Samaritan,  with  the  positive  qualities  of  ethical  righteousness, 
towering  above  the  religious  representatives  of  the  Jews.  If  a  Samaritan 
could  be  of  this  sort,  surely  the  people  were  worthy  of  the  best  evangel- 
izing efforts  of  the  Christians.  The  great  commandment  is  love  to  God 
and  man.  Up  to  the  point  of  missionary  departure  it  does  not  appear 
that  the  church  had  placed  any  broad  emphasis  on  the  latter.  As  soon 
as  it  began  to  be  understood,  the  wider  appeal  was  inevitable.  The 
Samaritan  is  your  neighbor;  therefore  see  to  it  that  he  gets  the  same 
opportunity  for  blessing  as  you.'  This  story  would  be  of  real  value 
in  combating  what  would  seem  to  be  an  unavoidable  opposition  to  a 
Samaritan  mission.  A  similar  use  could  be  made  of  the  healing  of  the 
ten  lepers.  That  the  only  one  of  the  ten  Palestinians  who  returned  to 
acknowledge  the  benefits  received  was  a  Samaritan,  a  stranger,  would 
tend  to  show  that  these  people  were  not  wanting  in  proper  feelings  of 
gratitude  and  would  acknowledge  their  indebtedness  to  their  benefactors 
beyond  many  who  plumed  themselves  on  their  pure  Jewish  extraction. 
The  manifestation  of  thankfulness  would  do  much  to  break  down  the 
bars  of  prejudice. 

Two  lines  of  argument,  then,  seem  to  suggest  that  these  Samaritan 
sections  gained  prominence  at  the  time  of  the  dispersion  of  the  Jeru- 
salem Christians,  mentioned  in  Acts  8:1-2.  These  lines  are:  (i)  the 
very  high  degree  of  probability  that  such  a  mission  would  create  antago- 
nism and  opposition  on  the  part  of  Jews  who  could  not  quite  forget  the 
deep  cleft  between  them  and  their  neighbors;  (2)  the  isolated  character 
of  these  phenomena  of  favorable  consideration  of  the  Samaritans  in  the 
whole  field  of  primitive  Christian  literature.  It  scarcely  needs  argument 
to  show  that  the  place  where  such  traditions  would  be  of  use,  and,  there- 
fore, assume  the  form  in  which  they  could  be  used,  was  Jerusalem. 
There  the  apostles  remained  even  in  the  days  of  the  persecution  (an 
indication  of  the  closeness  with  which  they  adhered  to  Judaism);  to 
them  and  to  the  church  in  that  place  the  rebuffed  missionaries  would 
naturally  turn  for  encouragement  and  instruction.    There  also  would 

'  It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  a  change  of  application  of  the  term  "neighbor." 
The  Samaritan  is  the  neighbor  in  vs.  36,  but  it  should  be  the  victim  of  the  thieves. 

547 


30  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

most  naturally  arise  the  opposition  to  the  movement  which  threatened 
to  break  down  the  barriers  which  the  brooding  and  hatred  of  ages  had 
raised.  Thus  we  find  the  traditions  of  this  specific  Samaritan  interest 
aligning  themselves  with  those  of  the  more  general  missionary  interest 
in  their  pragmatic  character  and  in  that  Jerusalem  was  the  place  of 
their  promulgation. 

ni.      THE   RECIPROCAL   OPPOSITION   OF   PHARISEES  AND   CHRISTIANS 

Readers  of  the  gospels  are  so  familiar  with  the  differences  which 
arose  between  Jesus  and  the  religious  leaders  of  his  people  that  but  scant 
attention  is  paid  to  features  of  the  tradition  which  fit  but  strangely  into 
the  career  of  Jesus  as  we  know  it.  It  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  there 
was  opposition  between  Jesus  and  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  that 
it  was  an  important,  in  some  respects  a  determining,  factor  in  his  career. 
But  it  may  well  be  questioned  whether  the  portrayal  of  these  classes, 
as  we  have  it,  is  quite  a  fair  and  unprejudiced  one.  Religious  prejudice 
is  an  adept  at  giving  a  twist  to  the  facts.  Modern  Jewish  apologists 
have  risen  to  protest  against  this  depicting  of  their  compatriots,  and  to 
declare  the  inaccuracy  and  inadequacy  of  the  description.^  From  un- 
prejudiced Jewish  sources  we  gain  the  impression  that  these  apologists 
have  many  things  in  their  favor. 

One  cannot  avoid  questioning  whether  if  this  hostility  of  the 
Pharisees  to  Jesus  had  ceased  at  his  death  and  resurrection  the  bitter- 
ness and  vituperation  which  some  parts  of  our  gospel  story  manifest 
would  have  been  remembered  and  recorded.  It  does  not  make  pleasant 
reading,  and  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  the  early  Christians  would  have 
preserved  such  traditions  and  have  given  them  prominence  if  the 
antagonisms  of  the  Jewish  religionists  to  the  thought  and  attitude  of 
Jesus  had  not  been  transferred  to  his  followers. 

We  learn  from  the  early  chapters  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that 
such  opposition  did  persist,  and  that  it  rose  at  last  into  persecution. 
It  is  true  that  the  Sadducees  seem  to  have  the  prominent  part  in  any 
proceedings  against  the  Christians,  but  this  may  be  accounted  for  in 
several  ways,  (i)  The  high  priests,  who  possessed  great  authority, 
belonged  to  the  Sadducean  party.     To  them  would  be  the  most  telling 

'  Cf.  the  discussion  among  Schiirer,  Abraham,  Montefiore,  and  Menzies,  in 
Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes,  4.  Aufl.,  II,  537-79;  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time 
of  Jesus  Christ,  Div.  II,  Vol.  II,  pp.  90-125,  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  XI,  626-42; 
Hibhert  Journal,  I,  335-46,  789-92;  cf.  also  Revue  des  etudes  juives,  LI,  191-216; 
LII,  1-23. 

548 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  31 

appeal  in  the  matter  of  safeguarding  the  national  religion  from  every- 
thing that  had  in  it  the  possibilities  of  inconvenience  for  the  oflScial 
class.  Already  in  the  case  of  the  death  of  Jesus  the  Pharisees,  generally 
their  bitter  opponents,  had  joined  hands  with  them.  It  was  an  easy 
matter  to  continue  the  alliance  against  the  followers  of  Jesus.  (2)  The 
Sadducees  were  dominant  in  influence  in  the  Sanhedrin,  and  were  the 
officials.  To  act  legally  in  a  matter  of  this  sort  their  interest  and  support 
must  be  enlisted.  (3)  The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  which  the 
Christians  preached  would  be  offensive  to  them. 

But  the  jealous  party  in  the  matter  of  opposing  innovations  on  the 
national  religion  was  the  Pharisees.  This  had  been  true  at  all  times 
since  the  Maccabean  period.  The  interference  of  the  authorities  with 
the  apostles  in  which  the  Sadducees  appear  to  be  the  leaders'  was  but 
a  herald  of  the  coming  storm.  Even  in  these  cases  the  Pharisees  would 
not  lack  representatives  in  the  punitive  court — the  Sanhedrin.  It 
is  quite  possible  that  they  were  the  real  instigators  of  the  opposition, 
as  in  the  case  of  Jesus.  At  any  rate,  when  severe  persecution  makes 
its  appearance  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Stephen  and  during  the  fol- 
lowing months  it  is  not  a  Sadducee,  but  a  Pharisee  of  the  Pharisees, 
that  is  the  moving  spirit  and  the  most  active  agent.  Here  again  the 
authority  of  the  high  priest  has  to  be  invoked  to  give  an  air  of  legality 
to  the  matter.^  The  incentive  to  move  against  Stephen  and  the  sect 
of  which  he  was  a  member  is  very  similar  to  that  which  actuated  the 
Pharisees  in  their  opposition  to  Jesus.  The  sanctity  of  their  religion  was 
being  invaded,  its  permanency  and  authority  disputed.  There  are 
many  indications  that  the  Pharisees  were  the  moving  spirits  in  the  perse- 
cution of  the  early  church,  working,  of  course,  in  conjunction  with  the 
priestly  authorities,  who  would  be  aroused  on  personal  rather  than  on 
religious  grounds. 

What  situation  do  the  sections  of  Luke  under  consideration  reflect  ? 
The  first  section  is  one  of  considerable  length  and  extends  from  11:37 
to  12: 12.  It  is  readily  admitted  that  much  of  this  fits  well  in  the  osten- 
sible situation  and  represents  a  fairly  acute  stage  of  the  controversy 
between  Jesus  and  the  Pharisees.  But  there  are  features  which  suggest 
a  later  situation.  The  intensely  Jewish  atmosphere  of  this  section  is 
shown  in  11:41,  "But  give  for  alms  those  things  which  are  within  and 
behold  all  things  are  clean  unto  you."     That  is  to  say,  that  which  makes 

'  .\cts  4:1  £f.;  5:17. 

'Acts  9:1.  As  to  Paul's  energy  and  persistence  in  persecution,  cf.  Gal.  1:13, 
23;  Phil.  3:6. 

549 


32  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

clean  is  almsgiving.  It  was  among  the  Jews  that  almsgiving  was  almost 
tantamount  to  righteousness.^  One  wonders  if  the  dp7rayrj<s  of  11:39 
is  material  and  refers  to  the  wealth  of  the  Pharisees  when  compared 
with  the  poverty  of  the  Christians.  It  would  not  be  hard  to  find  there 
an  added  cause  of  censure.^  "Ye  build  the  tombs  of  the  prophets  and 
your  fathers  killed  them.  So  ye  are  witnesses  and  consent  unto  the 
works  of  your  fathers:  for  they  killed  them,  and  ye  build  their  tombs. 
Therefore  also  said  the  wisdom  of  God,  I  will  send  unto  them  prophets 
and  apostles,  and  some  of  them  the}^  shall  kill  and  persecute;  that  the 
blood  of  all  the  prophets  which  was  shed  from  the  foundation  of  the 

world  may  be  required  from  this  generation Woe  unto  you 

lawyers!  for  ye  took  away  the  key  of  knowledge:  ye  entered  not  in 
yourselves  and  them  that  were  entering  ye  hindered."  How  could 
it  be  said  that  these  Pharisees  were  witnesses  and  participants  of  the 
works  of  their  fathers  ?  It  may  be  that  it  meant  that  the  scribes  were 
perpetuating  the  same  system  that  killed  the  prophets,  but  that  is  not 
an  adequate  explanation.  In  the  time  of  Jesus,  so  far  as  we  know,  no 
prophet,  save  himself,  suffered  at  the  hands  of  the  Pharisees.  But 
the  matter  gains  point  when  we  link  up  the  memory  of  their  part  in  his 
death,  their  supreme  sin,  with  the  persecution  and  death  of  Christians.^ 
The  combination  "prophets  and  apostles"  is  very  natural  as  coming 
from  a  primitive  Christian  community.  These  were  two  important 
orders  in  the  early  church.''  The  prophets  enjoyed  a  place  of  prominence 
and  esteem  among  early  Christians  and  their  words  were  considered  to 
have  authority.  With  regard  to  the  term  "  apostles, "^  it  is  a  matter  of 
grave  doubt  whether  the  title  was  given  to  the  Twelve  in  the  days  of 
Jesus.  In  Eph.  4:7  H.  " apostleship "  is  a  gift  of  the  ascended  Christ, 
that  is,  of  the  Spirit,  and  is  placed  in  the  same  list  as  prophets,  evan- 
gelists, and  so  forth.  It  is  probable  that  this  title  was  conferred  on  the 
intimates  of  Jesus  to  mark  their  peculiar  qualifications  as  witnesses  of 
the  resurrection.  In  any  case  the  collocation  "prophets  and  apostles" 
admirably  fits  the  situation  of  the  early  church  at  Jerusalem,  and  the 
passage  suggests  a  time  when  the  leaders  of  the  church  were  suffering 

'Cf.  Tob.  4:6fE. 

^  Note  the  attitude  of  the  early  Christians  toward  wealth. 

3  Cf.  Acts,  chaps.  7,  8;   12:  i  ff. 

^As  to  the  position  of  Christian  prophets,  cf.  Acts  11:27;    13:15   I  Cor.  12:10, 
28  f.;  Revelation,  and  patristic  references. 

s  Cf.  Ernest  D.  Burton,  "The  Office  of  Apostle  in  the  Early  Church,"  American 
Journal  of  Theology,  XVI,  561-88. 

550 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS    IN   LUKE  33 

at  the  hands  of  the  Jewish  authorities.  For  such  a  situation  and  its 
efifect  on  the  early  church  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Acts  may  be  consulted. 
"This  generation"  is  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  whole  process'  and 
the  penalty  imposed  is  the  abandonment  of  the  Jews  by  God  and  the 
working  of  the  power  of  evil  among  them.  The  rejection  by  the  Jews 
of  the  proffered  blessings  of  the  kingdom  through  Jesus  is  set  forth 
in  vs.  52  and  the  greater  blame  attached  to  the  vofxixoi.  But  Luke 
12:2  ff.  suggests  still  more  strongly  the  Apostolic  age  and  the  situation 
of  the  early  church.  The  comforting  assurance  that  the  thing  spoken 
secretly  should  have  wide  publicity  would  be  of  immense  importance 
in  reviving  the  drooping  spirits  of  the  Jerusalem  Christians  when,  under 
stress  of  Pharisaic  opposition,  they  had,  at  least  for  a  time,  to  carry  on 
their  meetings  secretly.  It  might  well  be  that  some  wondered  how  they 
were  to  prosecute  their  work  when  publicity  was  prevented.^ 

That  this  section  represents  the  Christian  church  under  Pharisaic 
persecution  seems  clear  from  Luke  12:4  ff.  There  is  a  worse  fate  than 
bodily  death,  so  terrible  that  it  should  be  feared:  the  death  of  the  soul, 
which  death  can  be  brought  about  by  apostasy  and  denial.  It  is  true 
that  the  Pharisees  cause  fear  by  the  exercise  of  their  persecuting  power, 
but  it  is  far  better  to  suffer  at  their  hands  than  to  be  unfaithful  to  God. 
Moreover,  this  suffering  on  their  part  is  no  indication  that  God  has 
forgotten.  He  has  numbered  the  hairs  of  their  heads  and  everything 
is  under  his  permissive  control.  The  passage  regarding  confession  or 
denial  of  the  Son  of  Man  would  be  of  inestimable  value  in  encoura- 
ging steadfastness  and  checking  any  tendency  to  apostasy.  That  such 
encouragement  and  warning  were  necessary  stands  almost  in  the  nature 
of  the  case.  The  mention  of  the  synagogues,  the  rulers,  and  the  author- 
ities in  Luke  12:11  fits  the  Jewish-Christian  situation  in  Jerusalem 
and  its  mission  to  Jews  as  it  fits  no  other.  The  theme  of  the  whole 
paragraph^  is  Christianity  under  persecution  by  the  Pharisees.  The 
Christians  are  to  do  their  task,  remain  faithful,  endure  trials  under 
the  assurance  of  ultimate  triumph.  The  appositeness  of  this  section 
to  the  situation  in  Palestine,  especially  in  Jerusalem,  at  the  time  of  the 
Pharisaic  opposition  seems  too  clear  to  require  further  argument.  It 
seems  highly  probable  that  we  have  here  a  primitive  tradition  regarding 
the  Pharisaic  religion  and  attitude  adapted  and  brought  into  use  in  the 
time  of  its  need.     There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  real  reason  for  the 

'  Luke  II :  50-51. 

^  For  such  prevention,  cf.  Acts  4:18;   5,28;   12:12. 

3 12: 1-12. 

551 


34  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

preservation  of  this  tradition  unless  it  was  called  forth  by  continued 
opposition  on  the  part  of  the  sect  so  severely  censured. 

The  anti-Pharisaic  interest — for  the  expression  of  which  we  have 
found  adequate  cause — appears  again  in  Luke  16:14-15.  The  section 
16:14-17  seems  to  be  composed  of  two  originally  independent  parts, 
at  least  logically  such,  which  interrupt  the  main  thought.  Vss.  14-15 
contain  the  application  to  the  Pharisees  of  the  previous  statements 
regarding  the  allurements  and  dangers  of  wealth,  and  suggest  that  in 
the  gathering  of  their  wealth  their  trust  of  the  true  riches  had  been 
betrayed.  A  further  recurrence  of  the  feeling  against  the  Pharisees 
is  seen  in  Luke  18:9-14  in  the  comparison  of  the  Pharisee  and  the 
publican  in  their  attitude  of  spirit  in  prayer.  However  genuine  a  tradi- 
tion this  might  be  from  the  standpoint  of  Jesus,  it  would  never  be  of 
such  significance  as  when  the  Christians,  drawn  from  humble  ranks, 
suffering  privations  and  hardships,  wondering  as  all  Jews  did  why  their 
piety  was  not  rewarded  with  prosperity,  became  conscious  of  the  wealth 
and  the  power  and  the  unrighteousness  of  the  Pharisees  and  oppressed 
with  the  burden  of  the  contrast.  Did  the  rank  and  file — yes,  even  the 
apostles  themselves — reach  this  consciousness  before  their  actual  experi- 
ence with  the  sect  in  Jerusalem  ?  That  their  Master  with  his  supreme 
insight  saw  thus  clearly  may  be  indisputable,  but  did  even  the  clearest- 
visioned  of  his  followers  attain  this?  It  is  quite  probable  that  this 
story  gained  currency  in  the  days  when  the  leaders  of  the  church  were 
antagonizing  the  Pharisees  and  when  they  wished  to  show  to  their  half- 
doubting  followers  that  in  the  sight  of  God  they  were  the  possessors  of 
the  true  riches. 

IV.      THE   EMPHASIS   ON   DISCIPLESHIP 

In  the  very  nature  of  the  case  the  problems  of  discipleship,  with 
their  almost  bewildering  variety,  would  obtrude  themselves  very 
prominently  in  the  early  years  of  the  Christian  movement.  The 
Christian  body  was  composed  of  people  who  had  broken,  or  were  break- 
ing, from  moorings  to  which  they  had  long  held  fast  in  safety  and  with 
more  or  less  tranquillity.  Many,  possibly  the  overwhelming  majority, 
of  these  people  were  from  the  humbler  walks  of  life,  uneducated,  lacking 
in  powers  of  self-control,  creatures  of  impulse  to  a  degree,  suspicious 
and  wayward,  very  human.  The  organization  to  which  they  attached 
themselves  was  new  and  untried,  the  motives  which  led  to  the  attach- 
ment almost  as  varied  as  the  people  were  numerous.  It  was  a  period 
of  experiment,  fluidity,  uncertainty,  and  trial.     The  possibilities  for 

552 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS    IN    LUKE  35 

vagaries  were  many,  and  the  need  of  instruction,  encouragement, 
admonition,  and  control  urgent.  It  would  be  strange  indeed  if  such 
conditions  and  such  need  had  not  left  their  mark  on  the  traditions  of 
the  time.  In  the  section  before  us  the  interest  of  control  of  discipleship 
emerges  very  early.  The  passage  Luke  9:57-61,  which  contains  some 
very  perplexing  matters  if  interpreted  from  the  standpoint  of  Jesus, 
becomes  interesting  and  illuminating  when  looked  at  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  early  Christian  community  and  the  interest  now  under 
consideration.  The  language  is  so  striking  that  one  suspects  a  very 
insistent  need  for  a  clear  and  strong  statement  of  the  terms  of  disciple- 
ship. The  glad  abandon  of  the  new  convert  is  expressed  in  the  words, 
"I  will  follow  thee  whithersoever  thou  goest";  and  is  in  turn  met  by  the 
ardor-dampening,  "The  foxes  have  holes  and  the  birds  of  the  heaven 
their  nests,  but  the  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head."  If 
there  were  those  pressing  into  the  new  movement  thoughtlessly  or  with 
hopes  of  any  material  benefit  in  the  kingdom,  such  a  reply  must  have 
given  them  pause.  If  there  be  any  motive  of  self-aggrandizement  it 
would  be  better  to  follow  foxes,  for  the  Son  of  Man  has  nothing  material 
to  offer.  It  does  not  require  a  high  degree  of  imagination  to  think  of 
such  motives  as  actuating  ones.  The  murmuring  of  the  Grecian  Jews 
regarding  their  widows,'  the  communistic  experiment,^  and  the  sordid- 
ness  of  Ananias^  are  straws  which  indicate  the  current. 

The  next  statement  of  the  passage''  is  an  exceedingly  strange  one: 
"Let  the  dead  bury  their  own  dead,  but  go  thou  and  publish  the  king- 
dom of  God."  On  the  face  of  it,  the  saying  seems  perfectly  heartless, 
but  it  is  somewhat  intelligible  if  we  can  think  of  it  as  meeting  a  situation 
when  the  performance  of  filial  duties  threatened  to  interfere  with  a 
matter  that  seemed  to  be  of  supreme  importance.  It  is  probable  that 
missionary  tasks  necessitated  some  hardships  which  might  well  cause 
some  faint  souls  to  waver.  Such  a  word  as  this,  as  coming  from  the  lips 
of  Jesus  and  touching  a  thing  of  such  importance  to  the  Jews  as  decent 
burial ,5  would  teach  that  true  discipleship  and  membership  in  the  king- 
dom called  for  the  acme  of  self-abnegation.  After  this  word,  any  plea 
on  this  or  similar  grounds  would  be  ruled  out  of  court.  Very  similar, 
but  with  a  slightly  different  emphasis,  is  the  third  statement  and  reply.^ 
One  cannot  but  feel  that  the  answer  to  a  very  natural  desire  to  bid 
farewell  to  friends  is  harsh  and  unyielding.  It  is  a  minor  thing  for  which 
to  deem  one  unworthy  of  the  kingdom.     But  if  the  statement  be  applied 

'Acts6:i£F.  ^Actssriff.  s  Cf.  Tob.  i :  18;   2:3  ff. 

'  Acts  4:32-36.  '•Vss.  59-60.  'Vss.  61-62. 

553 


36  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

to  a  time  when  social  and  domestic  ties  and  duties  and  the  bond  of  blood 
were  threatening  to  interfere  with  devotion  to  the  new  movement  and 
its  tasks,  its  value  as  coming  from  Jesus  is  instantly  seen.  That  such 
a  situation  arose  frequently  in  the  early  church  is  easy  to  believe.  The 
scantiness  of  our  sources  and  the  unlikelihood  of  such  a  phase  being 
directly  recorded  does  not  permit  a  definite  assignment  to  a  specific 
situation.  The  epistolary  literature  of  the  New  Testament  reflects 
similar  or  analogous  situations.  The  point  is  that  the  paragraph  repre- 
sents Jesus  as  requiring  of  disciples  absolute  devotion  and  sacrifice. 
If  Jesus  demanded  these  or  similar  things  no  disciple  who  recognized 
his  lordship  could  refuse  them. 

The  same  interest  is  clearly  seen  in  a  passage  which  has  been  dis- 
cussed under  the  previous  topic,  Luke  1 2 :  i  ff .  Here  the  disciples  are 
exhorted  to  steadfastness  and  fideHty  under  persecution,  evidently  a 
persecution  on  the  part  of  the  Pharisees.  The  designation  of  the  disciples 
as  friends  (<^tAot)  in  12:4  is  a  fine  touch  and  would  serve  to  dignify 
discipleship.  There  is  a  strong  exhortation  to  fidelity  and  watchful- 
ness in  12:3s  ff.  The  "burning  lamp"  and  "girded  loins"  are  striking 
figures  of  watchfulness  and  preparedness.  This  would  seem  to  represent 
a  time  when  the  Christians  were  beginning  to  wonder  at  the  delay  of  the 
Lord's  return,  which  they  had  thought  from  the  beginning  would  be 
immediate.  With  the  wonderment  are  mingled  some  disappointment 
and  a  relaxing  of  vigilance,  perhaps  also  a  looseness  of  conduct  and  an 
indifference  to  work.  The  promise  that  the  Master  will  come  suddenly 
and  himself  minister  to  their  needs  and  exalt  them  would  fit  such  a 
situation  excellently.  That  such  situations  of  impatience  and  wonder- 
ment did  exist  is  shown  by  Acts  1:6-7;  I  Cor.,  chap.  15;  I  Thess. 
4:13  ff.  It  is  a  Christian  recurrence  of  the  problem,  part  of  which  the 
Jews  solved  by  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection. 

There  is  a  further  appearance  of  the  interest  in  Luke  12:49-53. 
It  is  not  hard  to  think  that  a  religious  movement  such  as  Christianity 
interfered  with  social  and  family  relations.  We  scarcely  need  to  look 
beyond  our  own  generation  and  its  denominationahsm  for  proof.  Amid 
the  bitter  differences  which  could  so  easily  obtain  when  some  members 
of  a  family  or  group  embraced  the  new  faith,  what  more  telling  word 
from  the  Master  could  be  pressed  into  service  than  this  ?  One  of  the 
purposes  of  the  Lord's  life  on  earth  was  that  these  divisions  and  struggles 
might  come  to  pass.    The  pragmatic  value  of  the  passage  is  very  evident. 

Another  outcropping  of  the  interest  in  discipleship  occurs  in  Luke 
14:25  ff.    The  demands  made  on  the  true  and  worthy  disciple  and  the 

554 


SOME    NON-MARKAN    ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  37 

characteristics  of  such  a  one  are  here  set  forth.  The  previous  paragraph 
has  suggested  how  bitter  an  opposition  could  arise  when  Christianity- 
differentiated  itself  from  Judaism  and  began  to  be  recognized  as  a  differ- 
ent sect.  The  bitterness  of  feeling,  the  depth  of  resentment,  and  the 
measures  of  persecution  which  could  obtain  among  members  of  the  same 
household  have  a  modern  analogy  on  many  mission  fields.  It  would 
not  be  at  all  surprising  if,  in  the  face  of  social  opposition  and  the  hostile 
forces  of  domestic  relations  exerted  in  the  same  direction,  not  a  few 
converts  wavered  in  their  resolution  and  threatened  to  apostasize.  In 
such  a  case  the  reference  to  hatred  of  those  nearest  by  ties  of  blood  and 
to  the  bearing  of  severe  discipline  as  typified  by  the  term  "cross,"  the 
reference  to  these  as  absolute  essentials  to  true  discipleship  and,  there- 
fore, to  participation  in  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom,  would  be  a  most 
potent  force  in  steadying  the  wavering  and  restraining  the  feet  of  those 
who  were  faltering.  The  fact  of  apostasy  in  the  early  Christian  com- 
munity needs  little  argument.  As  soon  as  our  sources  expand,  we  find 
it  appearing  in  Paul's  work  and  causing  him  no  little  embarrassment 
and  sorrow.  Such  apostates  would  be  the  occasion  of  much  scandal 
and  a  serious  hindrance  to  other  converts.  For  the  purpose  of  prevent- 
ing hasty  professions  of  Christian  faith  which  would  later  be  quickly 
denied  under  stress  of  privation,  persecution,  or  opposition  of  any  kind, 
the  illustrations  regarding  counting  the  cost  and  planning  the  whole 
campaign  in  order  to  avoid  the  mockery  of  one's  fellows  and  the  sting 
of  defeat  would  be  strong  weapons.  These  two  illustrations  are  followed 
by  the  categorical  statement  that  nothing  under  heaven  must  be  allowed 
to  stand  between  the  disciple  and  the  claims  of  his  Lord.' 

These  passages  do  not  complete  the  number  which  are  concerned 
with  statements  regarding  discipleship.  Luke  17:1-10  concerns  itself 
ultimately  with  the  community  life.  The  "little  ones"  are  believers 
and  some  persons  or  things  are  causing  them  to  stumble.  It  is  not 
possible  to  say  with  any  degree  of  assurance  what  are  the  causes  of 
offense,  but  the  seriousness  of  the  matter  is  indisputable.  It  may  be 
that  the  persecutors  are  here  referred  to  and  that  on  them  the  curse 
falls.  But  with  equal,  even  with  greater,  probability,  if  we  take  "thy 
brother"  of  vs.  3  into  consideration,  the  reference  is  to  the  treatment 
of  the  weak  brother  by  some  stronger  one.  This  treatment  is  according 
to  a  standard  which  tends  to  discourage  the  weaker  one  and  cause  him 
to  fall  away.  The  seriousness  of  such  a  situation  is  clear.  The  exhorta- 
tions to  forgiveness^  breathe  the  spirit  of  some  generous  soul  and  suggest 

'  Vs.  3s.  '  Vss.  3-4. 

555 


38  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

that  too  stringent  demands  had  been  made  by  some  puritanical  dis- 
ciplinarians and  forgiveness  and  restoration  withheld. 

The  following  verses,  especially  7-10,  seem  to  indicate  that  some 
were  beginning  to  plume  themselves  on  the  amount  and  quality  of 
the  service  they  were  rendering.  This  might  easily  happen  where  the 
labors  of  some  had  been  more  successful  than  those  of  others.  Thoughts 
would  naturally  fly  to  the  greater  rewards  of  the  kingdom,  and  such  a 
spirit  would  have  large  possibilities  of  creating  discontent  and  dissen- 
sion.' It  would  be  very  salutary  and  of  great  force  to  have  a  word  of 
the  Master  which  would  tell  them  that  after  the  utmost  service  had 
been  rendered  by  them  there  was  no  cause  for  congratulation,  but 
rather  for  humility  of  spirit;  all  they  have  done  is  but  the  mere  fulfilment 
of  duty.  If  thanks  are  expressed  and  blessing  bestowed  it  is  not  on  the 
basis  of  desert  or  merit,  it  is  gratis. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  matter  of  discipleship  bulks  large  in  this 
material.  There  will  be  no  inclination  to  deny  that  problems  similar 
to  those  which  are  met  by  these  sections  arose  wherever  Christian  com- 
munities came  into  being  and  flourished.  It  is  simply  the  emergence 
of  the  human.  Since  this  is  so,  it  is  not  easy  to  tie  down  any  section 
to  a  specific  place  or  situation  with  any  degree  of  assurance.  But  we 
may  be  confident  that  when  these  problems  arose,  problems  which 
were  vital  to  the  church,  no  time  would  be  lost  in  bringing  to  bear  an 
authoritative  word  that  would  meet  the  situation.  The  place  where 
these  questions  would  first  obtrude  themselves  and  demand  answer  was 
almost  certainly  Jerusalem.  The  reference  to  the  burial  of  the  dead, 
the  Pharisaic  persecution,  the  impatience  at  the  delay  of  the  Lord's 
coming,  and  the  pluming  of  one's  self  on  greatness  of  service  are  primarily 
Jewish  and  Jerusalemic.  While  demonstration  is  not  possible,  there  is 
much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  that  these  traditions  took 
form  to  meet  situations  in  the  Jerusalem  community,  or  at  least  arose 
in  Jerusalem,  the  center  of  apostolic  tradition,  to  meet  situations  in 
the  Christian  communities  on  Palestinian  soil. 

v.      THE  ASCETIC   INTEREST 

In  discussing  the  opposition  to  the  Pharisees  which  seems  to  have 
obtained  in  the  early  church,  we  noticed  occasional  flashes  of  censure 
of  their  wealth-accumulating  propensities  combined  with  words  of  com- 
fort  to   the  poverty-ridden   Christians.     This   last   feature  reappears 

■  Cf.  the  request  of  James  and  John  and  the  indignation  of  the  other  disciples. 
Mark  10:35-41. 

556 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  39 

emphasized  and  strengthened  in  what  we  have  called  the  ascetic  interest. 
The  first  instance  is  in  Luke  10:38-42  where  INIartha  makes  her  appeal 
to  Jesus  against  Mary.  It  is  rather  strange  that  the  Son  of  Man  who 
came  "eating  and  drinking"  should  apparently  rebuke  the  generous 
hospitality  of  his  hostess.  The  matter  takes  on  a  new  color  from  the 
standpoint  of  an  interest  which  is  either  combating  a  tendency  to  indul- 
gence and  luxury  or  endeavoring  to  overcome  the  allurement  of  the  "good 
things  of  life."  The  exaltation  of  the  "good  part  which  shall  not  be 
taken  away  "  would  serve  such  an  interest.  Whatever  the  interpretation 
of  the  "one  thing,"  whether  it  signifies  that  the  spiritual  is  to  take 
precedence  over  the  mere  bodily  necessities  or  refers  to  the  simplicity 
of  the  meal,  the  tendency  is  to  exalt  the  severe  and  repressive. 

Again,  in  11 :  27-28  an  interest  which  might  be  called  ascetic  appears. 
The  natural  feelings  and  emotions  are  given  a  subordinate  position  and 
the  spiritual  is  emphasized.  This  is  the  repressive  element  which  makes 
religious  duties  override  family  ties  and  affections.  The  paragraph 
12: 13-20  sets  forth  an  appeal  to  Jesus  to  be  an  arbitrator  in  the  matter 
of  an  "inheritance."  The  stern  refusal  to  deal  with  such  matters, 
combined  with  the  statement  that  a  man's  life  consisteth  not  in  the 
things  which  he  possesseth,  and  with  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Fool, 
manifests  a  strong  tendency  against  the  accumulation  of  wealth  and  the 
indulgence  which  it  brings  and  at  the  same  time  serves  to  exalt  simplicity 
and  sincerity  of  life.  In  agreement  with  this  is  the  exhortation  to  avoid 
the  chief  seats  at  feasts  and  public  places,  with  the  corresponding  com- 
mendation of  humility,  and  the  accompanying  promise  that  true  humility 
and  freedom  from  self-seeking  will  gain  the  reward  of  honor  and  esteem, 
while  ostentation  and  self-aggrandizement  can  meet  no  other  end  than 
confusion  and  humiliation. 

It  may  be  argued  that  these  are  tenuous  threads  from  which  to  weave 
the  fabric  of  an  ascetic  interest.  It  is  granted  that  they  are  somewhat 
fragile,  but  not  overmuch  so.  Is  it  not  true  that  in  the  atmosphere  of 
the  early  Christian  community,  with  its  vagueness  and  need  of  adjust- 
ment, the  emphasis  on  asceticism  could  not  be  laid  too  strongly  for  fear 
of  injuring  an  undeveloped  faith  ?  It  would  seem  to  be  the  part  of  good 
leadership  not  to  urge  it  to  the  point  of  repulsion.  The  extravagant 
exaltation  of  this  tendency  in  later  times  to  the  extent  of  indifference 
to  the  body  and  the  glorification  of  martyrdom,  as  seen  in  the  Epistles 
of  Ignatius  and  the  Martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  would  probably  have 
strongly  repelled  the  halting  novices  in  the  faith  and  defeated  the  aims 
of  the  interest. 

557 


40  HISTORICAL  AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

Did  a  situation  exist  in  the  early  church  in  which  such  an  interest 
would  play  a  part  ?  We  may  note  the  experiment  of  that  organization 
as  recorded  in  Acts  2:43-45.  The  possession  of  great  wealth  was 
evidently  not  encouraged  in  the  community.'  Again,  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  James,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  early  became  a  commanding 
and  influential  personage  in  the  Jerusalem  church.^  His  relationship 
to  Jesus  would  naturally  give  him  special  claims  to  distinction  and  his 
dicta  would  have  corresponding  influence  and  weight.  His  Jewish  strict- 
ness and  rigidity  on  the  ascetic  side  are  shown  in  his  attitude  on  the 
matter  of  clean  and  unclean,-'  as  well  as  in  the  interference  of  his  mes- 
sengers at  Antioch.''  This,  of  course,  proves  no  more  than  that  James 
was  a  strict,  unyielding  Jew  in  these  respects,  but  the  elements  which 
make  for  asceticism  are  there.  However,  in  addition  to  this  we  have 
the  statement  of  Hegesippus  in  the  fifth  book  of  his  Commentaries, 
quoted  by  Eusebiusis 

But  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  who,  as  there  are  many  of  his  name, 
was  surnamed  the  Just  by  all,  from  the  days  of  our  Lord  until  now,  received 
the  government  of  the  church  with  the  apostles.  This  apostle  was  con- 
secrated from  his  mother's  womb.  He  drank  neither  wine  nor  fermented 
liquors,  and  abstained  from  animal  food.  A  razor  never  came  upon  his  head, 
he  never  anointed  with  oil,  and  never  used  a  bath.  He  alone  was  allowed  to 
enter  the  sanctuary.  He  never  wore  woolen,  but  linen  garments.  He  was 
in  the  habit  of  entering  the  temple  alone,  and  was  often  found  upon  his  bended 
knees,  and  interceding  for  the  forgiveness  of  the  people,  so  that  his  knees 
became  as  hard  as  camels'  in  consequence  of  his  habitual  supplication  and 
kneeling  before  God. 

Exception  may  be  taken  to  the  historicity  of  this  passage,  and 
probably  some  of  the  details  are  fanciful  and  apocryphal.  But  after 
due  allowance  has  been  made  for  legendary  accretion  there  probably 
remains  a  residutmi  which  indicates  that  James  was  of  an  ascetic  tempera- 
ment. It  does  not  seem  likely  that  such  a  statement  arose  with  abso- 
lutely no  foundation.  This,  coupled  with  what  we  know  of  the  man 
from  the  New  Testament,  gives  fair  justification  for  ascribing  a  severe 
and  repressive  tendency  to  him.  What  is  more  likely  than  that  this 
should  appear  in  some  of  the  traditions  regarding  Jesus  and  that  these 
should  be  promulgated  first  in  the  Jerusalem  community  and  made  to 
meet  any  tendency  to  laxity  and  indulgence  ? 

'Acts  4:32-35. 

'Acts  15:13,  15,  22;   21:17;  Gal.  1:19;  3:9,12. 
3  Acts  15:19-20.  ■'Gal.  2:12.  5 /^.£.,  II,  23. 

558 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  41 

VI.      THE   TEACHING   ON  EXORCISM 

We  pass  now  to  one  of  the  most  difficult  phases  of  our  subject  and 
one  of  no  little  importance.  This  is  the  teaching  of  this  section  on 
exorcism.  Its  first  appearance  is  in  connection  with  the  return  of  the 
Seventy.'  The  Seventy  are  represented  as  rejoicing  because  on  their 
missionary  tour  their  work  of  preaching  had  been  accompanied  by  works 
of  exorcism,  "Lord,  even  the  demons  are  subject  to  us  in  thy  name." 
The  sentence  can  be  understood  only  in  the  light  of  the  prevailing  world- 
view  and  the  demonology  of  the  time.  This,  however,  will  form  a  later 
part  of  our  discussion.  The  striking  thing  about  this  passage  is  that, 
apart  from  a  momentary  flash  of  apparent  gladness,  there  is  no  word 
of  commendation  from  Jesus  for  this  work.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  a 
very  distinct  rebuff  to  any  tendency  to  give  an  important  place  to  this 
species  of  activity.  "Nevertheless,  in  this  rejoice  not  that  the  spirits 
are  subject  to  you,  but  rejoice  that  your  names  are  written  in  heaven." 
Here  the  spiritual  side  of  the  work  is  clearly  given  prominence  at  the 
e.xpense  of  the  spectacular. 

The  question  of  exorcism  crops  out  for  a  moment  in  Luke  13:31-33, 
where  Jesus  makes  reply  to  the  Pharisees  who  warn  him  against  Herod. 
The  reply  is  an  oracular  one  and  is  rather  colorless  in  respect  to  our  dis- 
cussion here.  The  other  important  place  in  the  section  where  exorcism 
is  discussed  is  in  Luke  11 :  14-26.  Here  we  seem  to  have  two  conflicting 
phases  of  the  subject,  the  latter  of  which  we  shall  discuss  first.  The 
statement  regarding  the  man  who  has  been  delivered  from  an  unclean 
spirit  and  who  suffers  the  return  of  the  demon  with  seven  others  of  a  more 
vicious  tvpe  is  one  which  has  caused  no  little  difficulty  to  interpreters. 
The  only  legitimate  inference  is  that  a  deliverance  from  such  a  spirit  is 
followed  by  a  domination  many  times  worse.  Then  why  continue  the 
practice  ?  It  would  seem  inhuman  so  to  do.  The  question  raises  itself 
whether  this  passage  does  not  represent  a  circle  which  is  interested  in 
showing  the  inferiority  of  exorcism  as  a  line  of  religious  activity  and  its 
temporary  character.  If  this  is  so,  it  is  a  stronger  expression  of  the 
interest  manifested  in  the  somewhat  gentle  rebuke  of  Jesus  to  the 
Seventy. 

The  verses  which  precede  those  which  have  just  been  discussed, 
namely,  11:14-23,  offer  some  difficulty.  It  is  the  only  definite  case  of 
exorcism  in  this  whole  section — in  fact,  in  all  the  non-Markan  material — 
and  is  on  the  whole  unfavorable.  The  very  fact  that  such  activity  could 
be  connected  with  the  name  of  Beelzebul  shows  that  in  some  circles  it 

'  Luke  10:17-20. 

559 


42  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

did  not  enjoy  high  repute.  But  the  argument  of  the  passage  is  that  it  is 
by  divine  power  that  these  deeds  are  accomplished,  and  that  this  acquisi- 
tion and  exercise  of  power  over  the  evil  spirits  is  a  foreshadowing  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  an  earnest  of  the  greater  conquest  to  be.  A  stronger 
than  "the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air"  is  working  for  the  overthrow 
of  evil.  The  implication  of  vs.  23  is  that  any  opposition  to  this  testimony 
is  opposition  to  God  through  Jesus.  It  is  quite  possible  that  we  have  here 
a  reply  to  those  who  denounced  the  practice  from  a  circle  which  practiced 
exorcism  and  saw  in  it  the  promise  and  adumbration  of  the  kingdom. 

Have  we  then  in  these  passages  indications  that  there  were  two  circles 
among  early  Christians  which  held  opposing  views  on  this  subject  ?  Let 
us  examine  whatever  facts  may  have  a  bearing  on  the  matter.  In 
reference  to  the  practice  of  exorcism  by  the  early  Christians  we  note  that 
in  Acts  5:16  works  of  healing  and  exorcism  on  the  part  of  the  apostles  are 
said  to  have  attracted  large  numbers  of  people  from  the  country  around 
Jerusalem.  The  opposition  of  the  Jewish  leaders  seems  to  be  closely 
connected  with  this.  We  have  no  means  of  determining  what  the  "great 
wonders  and  signs"  wrought  by  Stephen  were,'  but  it  is  probable  that 
casting  out  evil  spirits  had  its  place  among  them.  In  the  Samaritan 
mission  under  the  leadership  of  Philip  we  are  told  that  his  "signs"  were 
exorcisms  and  that  there  were  many  of  them.  The  story  of  Simon  Magus 
gives  an  interesting  side-light  on  the  impression  which  such  deeds  made 
on  a  sorcerer.  In  Acts  8 :  14  ff .  the  power  to  cast  out  demons  is  dependent 
on  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  reception  was  accompanied 
by  external  manifestations.  On  the  missionary  tour  of  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas they  wrought  "  signs  and  wonders"  at  Iconium,  and  unbelieving  Jews 
stirred  up  opposition  against  them.  We  have  also  the  specific  case  of 
Paul  at  Philippi.^  Thus  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  exorcism  was  prac- 
ticed by  Jewish  Christians  at  a  very  early  time,  that  it  was  performed 
under  control  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  it  was  exorcism  in  the  name  of 
Jesus.^ 

What  was  the  Jewish  attitude  toward  exorcism  ?  It  appears  to  have 
been  more  or  less  a  custom  among  the  Jews.  This  is  shown  by  the  ad 
hominem  argument  of  Jesus  in  Luke  11 :  19,  "By  whom  do  your  sons  cast 
them  out?"  Unless  there  was  a  practice  more  or  less  prevalent  the 
remark  would  have  little  point.  Acts,  chap.  19,  is  also  of  significance 
here.  At  Ephesus  Paul  came  into  contact  with  a  number  of  itinerant 
exorcists  of  Jewish  nationality.     Evidently  they  made  a  profession  of 

'Acts  6: 8.  =  Acts  16:16  ff. 

3Cf.  Acts  4:30;  5:28;  16:18;  Luke  10:17. 

560 


SOME    NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  43 

casting  out  demons.  In  the  interbiblical  literature  the  Book  of  Tobit 
presents  a  case  in  point,  and  it  is  an  easy  matter  to  trace  both  prophetic 
and  legal  hostility  to  all  forms  of  magic'  The  translation  of  Exod.  20: 7 
might  well  run,  ''Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  for 
an  evil  purpose."  The  evil  use  of  the  name  of  Yahweh  which  is  here 
forbidden  cannot  possibly  refer  to  its  use  in  swearing,  because  the  people 
are  frequently  exhorted  to  swear  by  his  name.^  Moreover,  the  use  of  the 
sacred  name  for  any  such  purpose  as  blasphemous  cursing  would  be  the 
last  thought  for  a  Jew.  It  is  far  more  likely  that  the  prohibition  is  to 
prevent  its  use  in  incantations  and  spells  which  conjured  the  evil  spirit 
to  or  from  its  abode.  Two  things  then  are  clear:  (i)  that  the  practice  of 
sorcery  was  in  vogue  among  the  Jewish  people,  for  laws  are  not  made  in 
advance  of  need  and  prophets  do  not  fulminate  against  purely  imaginary 
evils;  (2)  that  there  were  legal  prohibitions  of  such  practices. 

We  must  now  recall  that  at  the  head  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem  stood 
a  man  who  was  a  Jew  of  a  rigid  and  strictly  legal  bent.  To  such  a  man 
the  exorcisms  which  were  performed  would  be  a  matter  for  doubt,  if 
not  a  thing  of  abhorrence.  That  James  had  a  strong  following  in  the 
Jerusalem  church  is  evidenced  by  the  part  it  played  later  in  the  legalistic 
controversy.  What  is  more  probable  than  that  in  this  circle  there  grew 
up  an  opposition  to  the  practice  of  exorcising  in  the  name  of  Jesus? 
To  the  members  of  this  legalistic  circle  it  was  a  transgression  of  a  direct 
command  and  therefore  not  to  be  tolerated.  Viewed  from  the  stand- 
point of  such  a  situation  the  passages  on  exorcism  in  our  section  become 
intelligible  as  they  do  on  no  other  interpretation.  Again  we  find  our 
material  giving  indications  of  having  emanated  from  the  Christian  com- 
munity at  Jerusalem. 

Vll.      THE   PRAYER   ELEMENT 

The  next  interest  which  we  discover  in  our  material  is  one  which 
might  be  considered  so  general  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  discover 
a  situation  into  which  it  would  not  fit,  and,  therefore,  difficult  to  assign 
to  any  particular  situation  with  any  high  degree  of  probability.  The 
prayer  element  in  this  material  emerges  first  in  the  eleventh  chapter, 
where  we  have  the  shorter  and  less-known  form  of  the  Lord's  prayer. 
The  introduction  to  this  prayer  is  significant:  "And  it  came  to  pass  as 
he  was  praying  in  a  certain  place,  that  when  he  ceased,  one  of  his  disciples 

'Isa.  8:9;  Jer.  27:9-10;  Mai.  3:5;  Exod.  20:7;  Lev.  19:26,  31;  20:6;  Deut. 
18:11.  The  passage  in  Deuteronomy  forbids  any  commerce  with  magic  and  uses 
the  broadest  terms  in  this  connection;  cf.  "abominations  of  the  nations." 

^Cf.  Deut.  10:20. 

561 


44  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

said  unto  him,  Lord,  teach  us  to  pray,  even  as  John  also  taught  his  dis- 
ciples." This  is  very  Jewish,  and  to  feel  the  atmosphere  one  has  but 
to  recall  the  fact  that  the  rabbis  sometimes  composed  prayers  for  their 
pupils.  This  introduction  is  very  different  from  that  which  meets  us 
in  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  and  raises  the  question  as  to  the 
situation  which  may  have  caused  it  to  be  remembered  or  formulated. 
It  would  seem  to  represent  a  period  in  which  Christianity  had  not  formu- 
lated its  prayers  and  was  feeling  the  need  of  so  doing.  Gradually  becom- 
ing conscious  of  its  difference  from  Judaism,  it  would  come  to  feel  the 
inadequacy  of  the  old  prayers  to  meet  the  new  spirit,  and  thus  to  lay  em- 
phasis on  such  an  element.  There  is  yet  another  possible  indication  of 
the  situation :  "  Even  as  John  also  taught  his  disciples."  The  persistence 
of  the  Johannine  movement  side  by  side  with  Christianity  is  a  fact  that 
cannot  be  gainsaid.  The  statement  regarding  ApoUos^  that  he  knew  only 
the  baptism  of  John  is  in  point  here,  while  the  incident  of  Paul  and  the 
disciples  at  Ephesus^  is  highly  significant.  One  of  the  manifest  interests 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  to  combat  a  persisting  Johannine  party.^  The 
placing  of  any  phase  of  the  Johannine  movement  in  contrast  to  that  of 
Jesus,  as  in  these  introductory  verses,  indicates  a  fairly  close  proximity 
of  the  two  movements  and  some  emulation. 

The  continuation  of  the  passage  which  contains  the  model  prayer* 
deals  specifically  with  this  interest.  The  evident  intent  of  the  verses  is 
to  encourage  the  disciples  to  continuance  in  prayer  even  in  the  face  of 
disheartening  obstacles.  The  basis  of  encouragement  is  the  fact  that 
they  may  rely  on  God  to  be  at  least  as  generous  and  willing  as  any  human 
friend.  The  specific  reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  supreme  gift  in 
answer  to  prayer  is  very  primitive  from  the  standpoint  of  Christian 
history. 

The  second  appearance  of  the  prayer  interest  in  our  material  is  in 
Luke  18:1-14.  There  are  two  parts  in  the  passage  representing  differ- 
ent phases  of  the  matter:  (i)  the  parable  of  the  Indifferent  Judge,  or 
better,  that  of  the  Importunate  Petitioner;  (2)  the  parable  of  the  Phari- 
see and  the  Publican.  Regarding  the  first,  the  evident  purpose  of  the 
story  is  to  emphasize  the  necessity  and  value  of  persistent,  courageous 

J  Acts  18:24  ff.  2  Acts  19:1-7. 

3  Cf.  E.  F.  Scott,  The  Fourth  Gospel,  pp.  77-S6.  As  to  the  continued  persistence 
of  Johannine  influence  in  the  Sabaeans  or  Mandaeans  found  in  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates 
districts,  cf.  Lightfoot  on  Colossians,  p.  402,  and  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible, 
n,  679. 

4  Luke  11:5-13. 

562 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS    IN    LUKE  45 

prayer,  not  the  unwillingness  of  God,  for  the  apathy  of  the  judge  is  but 
the  background  of  the  picture.  The  seventh  verse  seems  to  point  to  a 
situation  of  distress  and  oppression  which  calls  for  the  intervention  of 
God,  The  second  phase  represents  an  interest  in  the  control  of  prayer- 
custom  and  habit,  and  is  designed  to  prevent  arrogance  and  to  inculcate 
the  spirit  of  humility  born  from  a  sense  of  unworthiness. 

As  we  have  already  stated,  the  prayer  interest  is  so  general  that  it 
will  be  a  matter  of  difficulty  to  discover  indications  of  special  situations 
which  are  served  by  these  passages.  But  we  may  recall  the  pre-eminent 
position  which  prayer  occupied  in  the  early  Christian  community.  The 
prayer  in  the  upper  chamber,'  attendance  at  the  temple  at  the  hour  of 
prayer,-  the  prayer  of  the  community  in  special  situations,^  the  attitude 
and  practice  of  the  apostles  and  leaders,'*  and  of  the  laymen^  demonstrate 
this  with  clearness.  It  was  by  prayer  that  the  Holy  Spirit  and  its  accom- 
panying powers  came.  This  fact  alone  would  be  sufficient  to  show  that 
prayer  occupied  a  place  of  great  prominence.  It  may  be  asked:  "If 
this  is  so,  and  on  the  hypothesis  that  this  section  represents  the  needs  of 
the  early  Christian  community,  how  it  is  that  it  does  not  occupy  a  larger 
place  in  it?"  The  probable  explanation  is  simple.  Prayer  was  and 
is  one  of  the  most  spontaneous  expressions  of  religious  life  and  experi- 
ence and  would  not  suffer  too  great  a  control.  One  would  be  justified 
in  expecting  that  any  instruction  or  guidance  in  the  matter  would 
be  general  and  the  touches  light.  The  model  prayer  of  11:2  ff.  would 
serve  to  turn  the  minds  of  the  worshipers  to  sane  and  practical  subjects, 
a  control  so  urgent  and  necessary  in  a  primitive  movement,  and  thus  to 
prevent  wild  and  uncontrolled  and  dissipated  exercise  of  the  activity. 
Persistence  in  prayer,  especially  in  the  face  of  apparent  failure  and  hostile 
forces,  would  be  a  subject  most  apposite;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  per- 
sistence in  prayer,  especially  if  successful,  would  easily  produce  an 
incipient  religious  arrogance  which  the  parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the 
Publican  would  admirably  meet.  It  seems  very  probable  that  the  need 
for  prayer-control  would  arise  very  early  in  an  ecstatic  religious  com- 
munity, such  as  the  Jerusalem  church  was.  While  the  prayer  interest  of 
this  section  cannot  be  definitely  attached  to  this  circle,  we  can  say  that  it 
is  Palestinian  Jewish,^  and  that  as  far  as  there  are  indications  of  time  and 
place  they  favor  Jerusalem  and  its  Christian  community  as  the  place 
where  these  traditions  took  form. 

'  Acts  1 :  13-14,  24.  ••Acts  6:4;   8:15;   9:40;    11:5;    13:3;    16:16. 

^  Acts  3:1.  s  Acts  10:2,  30. 

3  Acts  4: 23;  12:5.  'Cf.  "Went  up  to  the  temple  to  pray." 

563 


46  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

VIII.     THE   MIRACLE   ELEMENT 

We  consider  now  the  bearing  of  the  treatment  of  miracle  which 
appears  in  this  section  as  evidence  for  the  date  and  place  of  the  material. 
The  first  fact  we  meet,  and  it  is  one  of  great  importance,  is  that  there  is 
but  a  modicum  of  the  miraculous  in  the  material  before  us.  In  lo :  3  there 
is  a  reference  to  mighty  works  which  had  been  done  in  Chorazin  and 
Bethsaida  without  any  further  specification,  while  none  are  noted  as 
having  been  performed  in  Capernaum,  the  Galilean  headquarters  of  Jesus. 
The  Seventy  are  represented  as  having  power  to  cast  out  evil  spirits.^ 
The  third  reference  is  in  11:14  ff.,  where  the  dumb  demon  is  exorcised. 
But  there  is  here  a  distinct  impression  that  the  thing  done  was  not  a 
marvelous  work.  By  some  the  deed  is  ascribed  to  co-operation  with  the 
prince  of  demons,  while  others  repudiate  it  as  unworthy  of  consideration, 
and  request  a  sign  that  shall  be  unmistakably  such  and  bear  the  stamp  of 
heavenly  supernatural  power.^  The  miraculous  is  not  by  any  means 
here  exalted  to  a  place  of  eminence.  Three  miracles  of  healing  complete 
the  list:  (i)  the  healing  of  the  woman  with  a  spirit  of  infirmity^  (13 :  10- 
17) ;  (2)  the  healing  of  the  dropsical  man  (14: 2) ;  (3)  the  healing  of  the 
ten  lepers  (17:11-19). 

The  very  modest  place  which  miracle  occupies  in  this  section  as  com- 
pared with  Mark  is  striking.  In  Mark  i — 9:29  (the  rest  of  Mark's 
Gospel  is  occupied  with  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  and  the  Passion), 
that  is,  during  the  Galilean  activity  of  Jesus,  there  are  three  specific 
cases  of  exorcism-'  and  five  general  statements  of  miracle-working  activity^ 
in  which  the  impression  is  given  that  a  large  number  of  miraculous  acts 
were  performed,  and  that  they  consisted  of  healings  in  general  and  of 
exorcisms.  One  of  these  statements  has  reference  to  the  activity  of  the 
disciples,  and  it  is  very  significant  that,  while  no  limitation  is  placed  on 
their  power  to  exorcise,  their  healing  activities  are  dependent  on  the  use 
of  medicinal  agents.^  The  Master,  however,  speaks  but  the  word. 
Besides  this  there  are  eight  specific  cases  of  healing  miracles  by  Jesus.^ 
In  addition  to  these  there  is  one  case  of  raising  the  dead*  and  four  nature 
miracles:  the  calming  of  the  storm;'  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand;'" 

'  10:17.  2  Vss.  15,  16. 

3  Note  the  indefiniteness  of  the  expression  wvevjia  acrOeveias. 
"1:231?.;   5:1  ff.;   7:24  ff. 

51:32,39;  3:ioff.;  6:13  ff.  (disciples);   6:53-56. 

'6:13.  '1:19,43;   2:32.;  3:iff.;   5:25;   7:3iff-;   8:22;  9:14-29. 

85:21  ff.  M:3Sff-  "6:33-44. 

564 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  47 

the  walking  on  the  water;'  and  the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand.^  How 
great  a  weight  of  the  miraculous  is  here  as  compared  with  our  Lukan  ma- 
terial is  very  evident.  Not  only  is  the  miraculous  much  greater  in 
quantity,  but  it  is  heightened  in  intensity.  In  Luke  the  miracles  are 
healings  and  exorcisms  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  healing  of  the  lepers, 
the  cases  are  left  as  indefinite  as  may  be.  In  Mark  we  have  the  raising 
of  the  dead  and  the  nature  miracles.  It  requires  no  argument  to  demon- 
strate the  difference  of  atmosphere.  It  may  be  said  that  this  section  is 
essentially  a  discourse  section  and,  as  such,  would  not  include  miracles. 
It  is  true  that  the  section  is  predominantly  discourse-material  and  in  so 
far  the  objection  has  force.  It  is,  however,  not  exclusively  so  and  the 
predominance  has  not  operated  to  the  exclusion  of  miracles,  as  the  pres- 
ence of  a  few  shows. 

Passing  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  we  find  seven  specific  miracles:  the 
turning  of  water  into  wine  at  Cana  (2:1-11),  the  healing  of  the  noble- 
man's son  (4:46-54),  the  healing  of  the  man  at  Bethesda  (5:1-9),  the 
feeding  of  the  multitude  (6:1-14),  the  walking  on  the  water  (6:16-21), 
the  restoration  of  sight  to  the  man  blind  from  his  birth  (9:1-12),  and  the 
raising  of  Lazarus  (11:1-45).  Besides  these  we  have  definite  state- 
ments of  groups  of  miracles  performed  by  Jesus.  "Now  when  he  was  at 
Jerusalem  at  the  passover,  during  the  feast,  many  believed  on  him  there, 
beholding  the  signs  which  he  did."^  "The  Galileans  received  him  having 
seen  all  the  things  which  he  did  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feast."^  "And  a 
great  multitude  followed  him  because  they  beheld  the  signs  which  he  did 
on  them  that  were  sick."s  "His  brethren  said  to  him.  Depart  hence, 
and  go  into  Judea  that  thy  disciples  also  may  behold  thy  works  which 
thou  doest."'^  "  But  though  he  had  done  so  many  signs  before  them  yet 
they  believed  not  on  him."?  Although  there  are  fewer  specific  miracles 
than  in  Mark,  the  character  is  similar  to  those  mentioned  there,  and  in 
some  cases  it  is  heightened.  The  impression  is  also  distinctly  conveyed 
that  the  exercise  of  this  miraculous  power  was  a  very  common  thing  with 
Jesus  and  that  we  have  but  a  few  of  his  deeds  recorded.  It  is  to  be 
noticed  that  the  miracle  of  exorcism  has  entirely  disappeared.  Another 
point  in  this  general  review  is  that  in  the  Lukan  section  we  are  discussing 
there  is  only  one  mention  of  faith  in  connection  with  the  miraculous  and 
that  is  after  the  miracle  has  been  performed  and  brings  an  added  blessing.^ 
In  Mark,  however,  faith  is  the  prerequisite  of  the  blessing  which  comes 
through  this  supernatural  power,  while  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  process 

'6:45-52.  32:23.  56:2.  ■'12:37. 

^8:1  ff.  M:4-5-  *7:3-  *Luke  17:19. 

565 


48  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

is  reversed  and  the  miracles  become  signs  (o-7;/x,€ta)  which  call  forth  faith 
in  the  one  who  performs  them. 

Let  us  noAv  examine  these  data  for  their  interpretation.  Entirely 
apart  from  the  question  of  historicity,  we  find  a  progress  in  the  matter  of 
the  number  of  miracles.  Between  this  Lukan  material  and  Mark  and  the 
Fourth  Gospel  there  is  a  great  disparity  in  this  respect.  In  the  character 
of  the  miracles  there  is  also  a  progress,  there  being  no  nature  miracles 
in  the  Lukan  section,  while  in  the  rest  of  the  material  they  appear. 
There  is  but  one  specific  case  of  exorcism  in  Luke  and  that  not  highly 
favorable,  while  this  type  is  predominant  in  Mark  and  wholly  disappears 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Faith  has  no  intimate  connection  with  the  mir- 
acles in  Luke,  it  is  their  prerequisite  in  Mark,  and  their  result  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  In  Mark,  Jesus  is  the  constant  doer  of  "mighty 
works,"  which  are  the  outflow  of  his  saving  power  and  are  cosmic  in  sig- 
nificance. In  the  Fourth  Gospel  they  are  "signs"  and  are  evidences  of 
his  person.  It  is  suggested  that  these  data  indicate  a  chronological 
development  and  place  this  material  earlier  than  Mark.  Is  this  develop- 
ment synchronous  with  the  christological  development  of  the  period?^ 
Is  it  possible  that  at  the  beginning  the  element  of  miracle  was  either 
ignored  or  emphasized  but  little,  and  that  it  was  only  as  christologi- 
cal thought  became  more  distinctly  formulated  and  heightened  that 
this  element  came  into  prominence?  Moreover,  the  opposition  of 
orthodox  Jews  to  anything  that  savored  of  commerce  with  evil  spirits 
would  tend  to  minimize  the  emphasis  on  exorcism.  Apart  from  Mark  it 
does  not  appear  in  any  large  way.  Does  its  disappearance  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  indicate  that  such  deeds  did  not  comport  as  well  with  the  high 
thought  of  the  Christ  as  did  the  other  miraculous  acts  ?  If  the  sons  of 
the  Pharisees  and  vagabond  Jews  did  such  things  they  would  have  little 
evidential  value  for  Jesus.  The  Markan  representation  comes  from  a 
circle  which  laid  emphasis  on  these  manifestations  of  power.  But  while 
explaining  the  silence  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  on  the  ground  of  christological 
propriety,  we  cannot  do  so  in  the  case  of  our  material.  It  is  much  more 
probable  that  an  early  date  is  one  factor  in  the  minimizing  of  the  miracu- 
lous when  the  future  appearance  of  Jesus  as  Messiah  well-nigh  filled  the 
whole  horizon  of  Christian  thought.  A  later  silence  would  be  harder 
to  explain.^  Another  factor,  already  suggested,  might  be  found  in  Jew- 
ish suspicion  if  this  material  is  of  Jerusalem  origin,  for  we  have  already 

'  Cf.  the  discussion  of  the  christological  interest,  pp.  49  ff. 

2  Cf.  Acts,  chap.  3,  for  such  a  miracle-free  representation  of  Jesus,  and  Acts,  chap. 
2,  which  some  think  a  later  phase  of  thought. 

566 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS    IN    LUKE  49 

seen  that  there  was  probably  at  Jerusalem  a  circle  which  looked  askance 
at  exorcism.  Thus  we  reach  the  hypothesis  that  the  status  of  the  miracle 
element  in  this  section  indicates  an  early  period  when  the  thought  of 
the  Christians  was  centered  on  other  matters  and  that  such  a  represen- 
tation comes  from  Palestinian  soil,  presumably  Jerusalem.' 

IX.      THE    STAGE    OF    CHRISTOLOGICAL    DEVELOPMENT    AS    INDICATIVE    OF 

TIME   AND   PLACE 

Attention  must  be  given  to  the  following  allusions  to,  or  statements 
regarding,  the  prophetic  and  teaching  function  of  Jesus.  In  io:i  he 
is  represented  as  about  to  follow  in  the  steps  of  his  preaching  disciples. 
Although  his  purpose  in  so  doing  is  not  stated,  it  is  a  fair  inference  that 
he  wished  to  supplement  their  message.  In  10:25  he  is  addressed 
as  "Teacher"  by  one  of  those  learned  in  the  law.  The  "good  part" 
which  Mary  chose  was  receiving  the  instruction  of  Jesus.^  The  passage 
II :  29  ff.,  where  Jesus  refuses  to  give  a  sign  to  those  asking  save  the  sign 
of  Jonah,  places  the  emphasis  on  the  prophetic  message.  The  way  in 
which  Jonah  became  a  sign  to  the  Ninevites  was  by  his  preaching,^  and 
"  as  Jonah  became  a  sign  to  the  people  of  Nineveh  so  shall  the  Son  of  Man 

be  to  this  generation The  men  of  Nineveh  ....  repented  at 

the  preaching  of  Jonah  and,  behold,  a  greater  than  Jonah  is  here." 
Thus  the  sign  to  that  generation  was  the  great  message  of  Jesus.  Again, 
the  lawyers  address  him  as  "Teacher"  in  11:45,  and  the  same  title 
is  applied  to  him  in  12 :  13.  His  teaching  labors  are  mentioned  in  13 :  10, 
22.  He  is  represented  in  13:33  as  distinctly  aligning  himself  with  the 
prophets.  "Nevertheless,  I  must  go  on  my  way  to-day  and  to-morrow, 
and  the  day  following,  for  it  cannot  be  that  a  prophet  perish  out  of 
Jerusalem."  It  is  quite  true  that  this  representation  of  the  preaching- 
teaching  function  of  Jesus  is  seen  in  other  material  than  this,  but  it 
receives  prominence  here.  Regarding  its  appearance  in  other  material 
it  must  be  granted  that  emphases  remain  in  vestiges,  sometimes  fre- 
quent vestiges,  after  a  new  phase  has  become  the  ruling  one. 

'Note  the  refusal  of  Jesus  to  give  a  sign,  Luke  11:295.  A  most  significant 
change  in  this  tradition  appears  in  the  parallel  in  Matthew,  12 :38  ff.,  where  the  empha- 
sis is  placed,  not  on  the  preaching  of  Jonah,  but  on  his  adventure  with  the  great  fish. 
It  should  be  noted  that  Luke  11 :  20  makes  Jesus  say  that  the  finger  (power)  of  God  is 
the  agency  in  exorcism,  not  Jesus  himself  by  a  word,  as  in  Mark.  This  Lukan  repre- 
sentation is  in  very  close  alignment  with  the  representation  of  Acts  2:22. 

'10:39,42. 

3  The  Matthean  parallel  has  an  entirely  different  thought. 

567 


50  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

We  turn  now  to  other  christological  representations.  The  title 
"Son  of  Man"  appears  in  9:58,  but  this  has  no  reference  other  than  to 
the  loneliness  of  Jesus.  In  11:30  the  title  refers  to  Jesus  in  his  teaching- 
preaching  ministry.  If  the  term  as  it  appears  in  12 : 8-10  is  apocal}^tic, 
it  is  only  very  moderately  so.  The  eschatological  passage  12:35-40 
represents  the  Son  of  Man  as  coming.  He  was  not  so  represented  in 
12:8-10.  It  is  not,  however,  the  vivid  and  pictorial  eschatology  of  Mark ; 
it  is  rather  a  reserved  and  indefinite  type.  A  difficult  and  heterogeneous 
passage  meets  us  in  17:20-37.  Vss.  20-21  seem  to  be  definitely  anti- 
apocalyptic.  In  the  following  verses  we  have  a  mixture  of  the  apoca- 
lyptic and  the  ethical,^  but  when  we  compare  this  with  Mark  we  find  that 
the  connection  of  Jesus  (the  Son  of  Man)  with  the  apocalyptic  program 
is  much  vaguer  than  in  the  Second  Gospel.  There  it  is  "for  my  name's 
sake,"  etc.  Thus  while  the  apocalyptic  eschatology  and  Christology 
appear  in  this  section,  the  quantity  is  not  great  and  is  very  vague  in 
t}^e.     The  title  6  Kvpto<s  also  appears. 

The  striking  christological  passage  in  this  section  is  10:21-23,  in 
which  Jesus,  as  the  text  now  stands,  claims  a  unique  relationship  to  the 
Father,  a  unique  knowledge  of  him,  and  a  unique  power  to  reveal  him, 
which  power  rests  on  his  own  faculty  of  choice.  The  discussion  of  these 
verses  by  Harnack  in  an  excursus  in  The  Sayings  of  Jesus^  is  excellent 
and  does  much  to  render  intelligible  a  passage  difficult  both  textually 
and  as  to  thought-content.  As  to  the  Christology,  all  we  need  to  note 
here  is  that  the  reconstructed  passage  gives  us  not  a  metaphysical  rela- 
tionship of  the  Father  to  Jesus,  but  an  ethical  one.  In  the  intimacy  of 
this  relationship  Jesus  has  gained  a  great  insight  into  the  character  of 
God  and  is  thus  enabled  to  show  him  to  those  with  whom  he  comes  in 
contact  as  no  other  can.  The  nature  of  Jesus  is  not  here  a  matter  of 
consideration,  it  is  his  function  and  task. 

What  we  have  of  christological  representation  in  this  section  does 
not  indicate  by  any  means  a  high  development  of  thought  on  the  matter. 
The  prophetic  preaching  phase  receives  considerable  attention,  the 
apocalyptic  and  messianic  side  of  the  question  is  much  less  vigorous  than 
in  Mark,  the  title  "the  Lord"  is  somewhat  in  evidence,  and  the  restored 
form  of  the  famous  passage  of  this  section  loses  its  highly  developed 
Christology  under  the  demands  of  textual  criticism. 

We  now  proceed  to  sketch  the  various  phases  of  christological  think- 
ing in  order  to  find  a  time  and  a  place  into  which  the  phenomena  which 
appear  in  our  material  will  fit.     It  must  be  said  at  the  outset  that  the 

'  Vs.  2>Z-  ^  Hamack,  The  Sayings  of  Jesus,  pp.  272-310. 

568 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  51 

different  phases  were  probably  not  sharply  distinguished  either  chrono- 
logically or  as  to  area.  The  scantiness  of  our  sources  in  some 
quarters  renders  the  task  a  delicate  one,  but  a  general  outline  may  be 
obtained. 

For  the  early  Christians  the  supreme  evidence  of  the  uniqueness  of 
Jesus  was  the  resurrection.  It  was  the  ground  of  their  messianic  faith, 
and,  if  to  their  Jewish  minds  the  essentials  of  the  messianic  task  had  not 
been  performed  by  Jesus  in  his  earthly  life,  they  had  but  to  wait  for  his 
return  on  the  clouds  to  see  them  accomplished.  He  is  "  the  Christ  who 
hath  been  appointed  for  you;  Jesus,  whom  the  heavens  must  receive 
until  the  time  of  restoration  of  all  things."'  There  was  a  phase  of 
thought  which  considered  that  it  was  first  by  his  resurrection  that  Jesus 
became  Messiah.  The  clima.x  of  Peter's  Pentecostal  sermon^  is  in 
the  light  of  the  preceding  context  best  interpreted  in  this  way.  The 
term  used  is  a  strong  one  (inoirjaev).  Whatever  Paul  may  have  thought 
of  the  pre-existence  and  position  of  Jesus  he  certainly  considers  that  by 
the  resurrection  Jesus  was  placed  in  possession  of  a  more  potent  messiah- 
ship  than  had  been  his  hitherto.  On  a  fair  interpretation  of  Rom.  1:3-4 
this  conclusion  is  necessary.  In  the  very  nature  of  the  case  this  adoption- 
ist  idea  could  not  long  hold  its  ground.  The  future  work  of  the  Messiah 
must  be  connected  with  his  earthly  life.  In  proportion  to  the  dimming 
of  the  hope  of  his  immediate  coming  was  the  increase  of  the  demand  that 
his  saving  ministry  appear  in  the  past.  Moreover,  it  is  quite  possible 
that  unbelieving  Jews  might  ask  questions  and  make  statements  regard- 
ing the  earthly  career  of  Jesus  that  would  cause  no  little  perplexity  and 
difficulty,  and  create  a  need  for  explanation  of  the  events  to  which  these 
statements  related.  That  this  happened  in  the  case  of  his  death  seems 
very  evident  from  our  sources.  In  the  linking  of  the  earthly  career  of 
Jesus  with  his  official  position  and  future  work  what  were  the  lines  along 
which  the  earthly  Christians  moved  ?  It  would  seem  that  the  great  mes- 
sage of  Jesus  was  early  taken  as  evidence  of  his  messianic  dignity  and 
work  on  earth.  With  the  words  of  Deuteronomy,  chap.  i8,  regarding 
the  prophet  like  unto  Moses  whom  Yahweh  would  raise  up  for  his  people 
as  a  basis  and  starting-point,  the  splendid  ministry  of  preaching  and 
prophetic  utterance  on  the  part  of  Jesus  could  easily  be  taken  as  mes- 
sianic attestation.  In  fact,  this  very  word  is  quoted  in  Peter's  sermon 
as  recorded  in  Acts  3:22,  and  is  there  applied  to  Jesus.^    Such  traditions 

'  Acts 3:20-21.  2. Vets  2:36. 

3  It  should  be  noted  in  passing  that  the  Samaritans  possessing  only  the  Pentateuch 
would  be  confined  to  this  representation  of  the  one  who  was  to  come. 

569 


52  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

as  the  transfiguration  would  also  be  pointed  out  as  evidences  of  a  unique- 
ness on  the  part  of  Jesus  while  on  earth.  It  is  quite  possible  that  such 
things  as  the  promise^  of  a  prophetic  person  to  whose  word  obedience 
was  to  be  rendered,  and  the  exhortation  in  the  transfiguration  experience 
where  Jesus  is  manifestly  superior  to  Moses,  served  to  meet  a  problem 
which  early  confronted  the  Christians  by  reason  of  a  Jewish  challenge 
on  behalf  of  the  supremacy  of  Moses.  They  would  perform  such  a  service 
excellently.  This  would  appear  to  be  the  transition  from  the  attestation 
of  Jesus  by  God  to  a  self-attestation. 

It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  early  leaders  of  the  Christian  com- 
munity soon  found  some  exceedingly  delicate  and  troublesome  problems 
on  their  hands.  No  sooner  was  claim  of  messiahship  made  for  Jesus  than 
unbelieving  Jews  pointed  out  his  ignominious  death,  his  obscure  lineage, 
and  lowly  origin.  In  a  way  that  cannot  fail  to  command  our  admiration 
the  Christians  addressed  themselves  to  their  task.  The  death  was 
explained  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  foreseen  matter  foreshadowed 
by  the  prophets,^  that  it  was  in  line  with  the  purpose  and  plan  of  the 
omnipotent  God,^  and  that  it  was  for  the  sins  of  men.*  The  genealogies 
showed  his  kingly  descent  and  answered  the  reproach  of  lowly  origin,  as 
well  as  brought  him  into  line  with  the  Davidic  prince  who  was  to  rule. 
The  supernatural  conception  explained  the  entry  of  this  messianic  being 
into  the  world.  Thus  Jesus  is  Messiah  at  least  from  his  birth.  These 
last  features,  however,  were  later  in  making  their  appearance,  however 
long  they  may  have  been  in  existence.  Between  the  interpretations  of 
Jesus  just  considered  is  a  representation  which  we  find  in  Mark,  where 
Jesus  is  set  forth  as  the  user  of  miraculous  power  which  is  employed  to 
overthrow  the  kingdom  of  the  evil  one.  As  far  as  Mark  alone  is  con- 
cerned the  realization  of  messianic  position  and  task  comes  to  Jesus  at 
the  time  of  his  baptism  when  the  voice  from  the  heavens  declares,  "Thou 
art  my  beloved  Son,  in  thee  I  take  pleasure."  The  temptation  story  in 
Mark  and  the  emphasis  on  mighty  works  set  forth  Jesus  as  the  Messiah 
on  earth  who  has  conquered  Satan  and  is  plundering  his  domain.  Thus 
the  kingdom  of  righteousness — the  messianic  kingdom — has  already 
begun  to  triumph  over  the  dominion  of  darkness  and  evil.s  Early  the 
primitive  Christians  found  strong  evidence  of  Jesus'  messiahship  in  the 
saving  power  which  inhered  in  him  and  was  manifested  in  miraculous 

'  Deut.  18:18-19.  ^Acts3:i8.  3Acts2:23.  ^  Ci.  Ta.ul,  passim. 

s  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  the  covert  note  of  surprise  in  the 
voice  of  Jesus,  "I  was  beholding  Satan  fall  as  lightning  from  heaven,"  Luke  10:18. 
This  seems  earlier  than  Mark. 

570 


SOME    NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  53 

display.  This  is  another  self-attestation  of  Jesus.  When  we  reach  the 
Fourth  Gospel  the  question  has  passed  beyond  controversy — Jesus  is  the 
pre-existent  divine  Logos.' 

If  we  have  approximated  to  fact  in  this  meager  sketch  of  the  various 
phases  of  thought  about  Jesus  as  reflected  in  our  sources,  it  will  not  be  a 
diflicult  task  to  assign  our  material  to  its  place  and  date  on  the  basis  of 
its  christological  ideas.  Two  phases  appear  in  the  main:  (i)  that  in 
which  the  teaching  ministry  of  Jesus  predominates,  and  (2)  an  eschato- 
logical  representation  quite  modified  in  tone.  Both  these  phases  prob- 
ably existed  side  by  side  in  early  Christian  thinking.  The  heralding  of 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah  to  come  could  not  fail  to  draw  around  his  person  and 
its  interpretation  some  of  the  imagery  and  fancy  of  apocah-pticism. 
That  this  was  done  has  been  placed  beyond  question  by  the  Christian 
Apocalypse  which  closes  the  Canon.  The  presence  of  this  phenomenon 
in  a  modified  form  in  our  material  argues  one  of  two  things:  (i)  either 
it  has  come  from  a  circle  which  did  not  approve  the  type  of  thought,  or 
(2)  it  comes  from  a  time  when  the  process  was  incipient.  The  possibility 
of  the  prophetic  side  of  the  interpretation  having  arisen  to  meet  Jewish 
taunts  as  to  Jesus'  inferiority  to  Moses  has  been  suggested  above.  These 
taunts  would  almost  surely  arise  when  Christians  began  to  evangelize 
the  Jews.  Both  the  phases  which  appear  in  this  section  are  Jewish  and 
can  hardly  have  originated  on  other  than  Jewish  soil.  WTiere  would 
such  thinking  and  interpretation  take  its  rise?  There  is  every  proba- 
bility that  the  early  Christian  interpretation  of  Jesus  was  wrought  out 
by  those  who  had  been  closest  to  him  in  his  earthly  career.  It  was  to 
them  the  community  turned  as  the  fountains  of  knowledge  concerning 
the  church's  Lord.  These  men  for  long  years  had  their  quarters  at 
Jerusalem  and  from  that  point  dominated  the  situation.  It  is  quite  in 
accord  with  this  that  we  find  both  the  phases  under  consideration 
set  forth  in  the  addresses  of  Peter  in  Acts,  chaps.  2  and  3.  While  it  is 
true  that  the  apocalyptic  interpretation  was  not  by  any  means  confined  to 
Jewish  centers,^  yet  it  was  Jewish  in  origin,  character,  and  development, 
and  when  probabilities  are  weighed  the  likelihood  of  Jerusalem  as  its 
center  must  be  conceded.  As  for  the  prophetic  aspect,  it  is  distinctly 
Jewish,  and,  both  from  the  standpoint  of  origin  and  from  that  of  probable 
purpose,  belongs  to  Jerusalem,  performing  its  service  there  in  the  years 

'  It  would  be  instructive  to  follow  the  exaltation  of  Jesus  through  patristic  litera- 
ture to  the  declaration  of  the  Council  of  Xicea,  but  that  does  not  belong  to  this  dis- 
cussion. 

'  Cf.  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  the  Thessalonians. 

571 


54  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

when  the  Jewish  Christians  were  pressing  the  claims  of  their  Lord  on  their 
fellow- Jews  and  meeting  their  incredulity. 

X.      THE    PROGRESS    OF    CHRISTIANITY    AS    INDICATING    THE    DATE    AND 
PROVENANCE   OF   THIS   MATERIAL 

In  the  well-known  passage  Luke  lo:  21-24  we  have  a  reflection  of  the 
progress  which  missionary  Christianity  had  made  and  was  making: 
"I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou  didst  hide 
these  things  from  the  wise  and  understanding  and  didst  reveal  them  unto 
babes."  It  is  very  evident  here  that  the  message  of  early  Christianity 
had  made  little  appeal  and  had  produced  little  efifect  on  the  intellectual 
and  cultured  classes.  That  this  was  the  condition  of  affairs  in  Jerusalem 
seems  to  be  made  abundantly  clear  by  the  attitude  of  the  aristocratic 
Sadducees  and  high-priestly  class.^  This,  too,  in  spite  of  the  statement 
that  a  great  company  of  the  priests  were  obedient  to  the  faith.^  The 
cases  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  and  the  centurion,  Cornelius,  offer  no 
serious  difficulty.  The  Pharisaic  sneer  of  John  7:48  is  possibly  a  tra- 
dition from  this  earlier  time,  "Hath  any  of  the  rulers  believed  on  him 
or  any  of  the  Pharisees?"  That  Paul  met  the  same  situation  and  felt 
the  necessity  of  dealing  with  it  is  clear  from  I  Cor.  i :  20  ff.  There  we 
find  that  both  on  Jewish  and  on  Greek  soil  the  response  to  the  Christian 
appeal  has  been  on  the  part  of  the  unlettered  and  unlearned.  In  that 
case  and  in  the  one  before  us  in  the  Lukan  material  the  explanation  is 
the  same.  It  is  part  of  the  purpose  of  God;  he  has  called  and  he  has 
revealed.  But  we  notice  that  Paul  dealt  with  the  question  very  soon 
after  the  problem  arose  among  the  Corinthians,  and  it  is  but  natural  to 
think  that  the  same  insistence  for  an  explanation  on  the  part  of  Jews  is 
met  in  the  section  before  us.  It  fits  the  Jerusalem  situation  passing 
well,  for  that  church  gives  little  evidence  of  possessing  leaders  or  mem- 
bers of  the  intellectual  or  cultured  type.  It  is  rather  strange  that  the 
Jerusalem  church  produced  so  few  men  in  the  course  of  its  history  who 
were  at  all  eminent.  As  to  its  poverty  and  need,  the  distribution  to 
the  widows,  the  experiment  with  communism,  the  request  of  the  council 
that  the  poor  should  be  remembered,^  and  the  zealous  activity  of  Paul  in 
his  collection  for  the  poor  of  the  mother-church''  leave  no  room  for 
questioning.  Thus  this  part  of  our  material  would  fit  the  situation  in 
Jerusalem  and  probably  in  Palestine  in  all  its  missionary  activities. 

'  Cf.  Acts  4:1,  5,  13,  "unlearned  and  ignorant";  5:17,24;   7:1. 

'Acts  6:7.  3  Gal.  2:10. 

4  1  Cor.  16:1  ff.;  II  Cor.,  chaps.  8,  9;  Rom.  15:25-26;  Acts  24:17. 

572 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  55 

Again,  10:22  flf.  seems  to  reflect  a  time  when  considerable  work  had 
been  done  along  missionary  lines,  but  when  the  results  appeared  rather 
meager  to  those  who  were  laboring.  Some  passages  in  Acts'  indicate 
a  marvelous  success  for  the  movement  from  the  beginning.  But  there 
is  strong  evidence  that  the  Jews  as  such  steadily  refused  to  give  allegiance 
to  the  teachings  of  what  was  to  them  an  impious  sect.  It  was  one  of  the 
heaviest  burdens  which  weighed  down  the  heart  of  Paul  that  his  nation 
had  rejected  the  Christ  and  his  salvation.  It  is  with  no  imaginary  prob- 
lem that  the  apostle  is  wrestling  in  Rom.,  chaps.  9-1 1 ;  the  crushing  truth 
is  that  the  results  of  the  Christian  mission  among  the  Jews  have  been 
disappointing  to  a  degree.  In  a  similar  strain  is  the  lament  of  the 
apostle  in  II  Cor.  3:13-16.  We  have  already  seen  that  certain  parts 
of  this  Lukan  material  strongly  reflect  the  rejection  of  the  gospel  by 
the  Jews.  Paul  has  two  solutions:  (i)  "Their  minds  were  hardened"; 
(2)  the  Gentiles  profit  by  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  which  is  but  tempo- 
rary. Here  in  Luke  there  is  the  simpler  and  less  reasoned  explanation 
that  this  lack  of  success  is  due  to  the  providential  control  of  God.  Reve- 
lation of  the  truth  comes  only  by  the  Father  and  the  Son;  the  disciples 
are  relieved  of  responsibility  when  they  have  faithfully  done  their  part. 
The  early  Christian  missionaries,  in  the  first  blush  of  their  great  religious 
experience,  their  new  belief,  and  in  the  face  of  their  inspiring  task,  could 
not  fail  to  expect  their  efforts  to  be  attended  with  sweeping  success. 
To  them  their  message  was  the  greatest  thing  in  life,  in  their  enthusiasm 
they  could  but  think  that  it  must  compel  acceptance  with  all  who  heard 
it.  But  we  know  the  results  fell  far  below  such  expectations.  Did  they 
turn  amid  such  circumstances  to  those  from  whom  they  had  gone  forth 
and  to  whom  they  had  learned  to  look  for  counsel,  the  apostles,  and  from 
them  receive  this  word  of  the  Master  to  be  the  answer  to  their  doubts  and 
their  encouragement  to  future  efforts?  What  more  probable  function 
could  it  exercise  ? 

XI.      OTHER   INDICATIONS   AS   TO   TIME  AND  PLACE 

In  the  following  paragraphs  we  gather  together  a  few  scattered 
statements  which  are  better  treated  in  this  way  than  by  assigning  a 
separate  heading  to  each.  The  passage  in  Luke  13:31-35  contains 
two  such.  We  consider  first  13:31-33,  in  which  the  Pharisees  are 
represented  as  advising  Jesus  to  leave  the  territory  ruled  over  by  Herod 
and  seek  safety  elsewhere,  because  Herod  had  designs  on  his  life.  It  is 
a  curious  bit  of  tradition,  (i)  because  of  its  fugitive  reference  to  Herod, 

'2:5  ff.,  41,47;  4:4,  21;  5:14;  6:7. 

573 


56  HISTORICAL  AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

(2)  because  of  the  very  strange  representation  of  the  Pharisees  as  giving 
friendly  counsel  to  one  whom  they  are  otherwise  declared  to  hate  and 
whose  life  they  desire,  and  (3)  because  of  the  vague,  indefinite,  oracular 
response  of  Jesus,  dimly  suggesting  a  consciousness  that  all  his  course 
was  pre-arranged  and  determined.  It  is  a  weak  form  of  the  Johannine 
"Mine  hour  is  not  yet  come."  It  seems  to  be  an  isolated  scrap  of  tra- 
dition connected  here  with  the  following  context  by  the  reference  to 
Jerusalem.  One  cannot  avoid  wondering  how  it  came  to  be  preserved, 
especially  when  it  distinctly  opposes  the  hostile  representation  of  the 
Pharisees.  Nor  is  the  statement  regarding  Herod  such  as  friends  of 
Jesus  would  care  to  remember  on  his  lips.  Is  there  an  interest  which 
would  account  for  the  preservation  and  use  of  such  a  passage?  The 
references  to  Herod  and  his  followers  are  sufficiently  rare  to  raise  a 
suspicion  that  in  the  mention  of  these  may  be  found  a  hint  of  the 
solution.  In  Acts  12:1  ff.  we  have  the  statement  that  Herod  the  king 
was  persecuting  the  church,  and  had  gone  so  far  as  to  kill  the  apostle 
James.  Then  to  please  the  Jews  (a  fine  touch  regarding  the  Herods)  he 
arrested  Peter.  At  such  a  time  when  Herod  was  vexatious  to  the  church 
the  Christians  would  be  interested  in  remembering  any  tradition  which 
reflected  discredit  on  the  Idumean  house,  and  which  would  at  the  same 
time  show  that  they  were  but  suffering  a  continuance  of  the  treatment 
which  had  been  given  their  Lord.  While  to  our  modern  way  of  thinking 
this  might  seem  puerile,  it  would  have  real  significance  and  perform  a 
function  of  value  in  a  Jerusalem  situation.  The  question  also  obtrudes 
itself:  If  this  were  Herod  Antipas,  as  it  must  be  in  any  reference  to  Jesus, 
what  jurisdiction  would  he  have  over  Jesus  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Jerusalem  ?  At  that  time  the  district  of  Judea  was  under  direct  Roman 
rule  and  Jesus  had  long  since  left  the  territory  over  which  Antipas  held 
sway.'  But  it  is  significant  that  at  the  time  of  the  incidents  recorded 
in  Acts,  chap.  12,  Herod  Agrippa  I  was  on  the  throne  over  the  land 
of  Judea.  This  was  the  only  time  a  Herod  held  sway  over  Judea  after 
6  A.D.  Thus  several  suggestive  lines  point  to  the  time  when  Herod 
Agrippa  was  vexing  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  dates  of  his  rule 
are  41-44  a.d. 

Following  these  verses  are  two^  which  represent  Jesus  as  lamenting 
over  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  bewailing  her  treatment  of  those  who  tried 
to  instruct  her,  protesting  that  she  herself  had  rejected  all  the  advances 
of  her  Lord,  and  solemnly  declaring  that  she  is  abandoned  until  she  shall 
have  acknowledged  Jesus  as  the  Sent  of  Yahweh.     When  we  recall  the 

'9:51;  13:22.  '13:34-35- 

574 


SOME   NON-MARK.\N   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  57 

fact  that  Jerusalem  was  the  scene  of  the  early  Christian  activity,  the 
birthplace  of  the  church,  the  headquarters  of  missionary  endeavor  for 
many  years,  that  she  remained  the  center  to  which  the  eyes  of  Jewish  and 
many  Greek  Christians  turned  with  something  akin  to  reverence  for 
many  years  more,  the  preservation  of  such  a  tradition  is  passing  strange. 
If  it  were  in  existence  and  in  any  way  current  during  those  early  years 
it  could  not  fail  to  give  offense.  It  is  in  striking  contrast  to  the  pacifica- 
tory utterances  of  Peter  in  his  addresses  in  Acts,  chaps.  2  and  3,  where 
he  is  made  to  say  that  the  Jews  put  Jesus  to  death  in  ignorance  and  that 
they  were  merely  the  agents  in  the  execution  of  the  divine  purpose.  Are 
there  any  indications  of  date  or  situation  in  the  verses  "That  killest  the 
prophets  and  stonest  them  that  are  sent  unto  thee"?  Is  there  any 
known  situation  which  this  fits  so  well  as  the  death  of  James  at  the 
hand  of  Herod  and  the  stoning  of  Stephen  ?  It  is  a  very  apt  description 
of  two  great  tragedies  which  occurred  during  the  early  years  in  Jerusalem. 
"How  often  would  I  have  gathered  you  .  .  .  .  ,  but  ye  would  not! 
Behold,  your  house  is  left  unto  you  desolate!  ....  Ye  shall  not  see 
me  until  ye  shall  say.  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord."' 

'  The  position  has  been  advanced  that  the  words  in  13:34-35  are  a  late  tradition 
and  arose  at  the  time  of  the  abandonment  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Christians  before  its 
fall.  I  agree  with  Wellhausen  (Das  Evangelium  Matlhaei,  p.  121)  that  6  oIkos  y/twv 
does  not  refer  to  the  temple.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  thought  of  desolation  is 
transferred  from  the  epTj/nos  of  Matt.  23 :  38.  In  Luke  it  is  a  simple  abandonment 
(d^ierat).  Now  if  this  refers  to  the  abandonment  of  Jews  by  Christians  as  an  object 
of  missionary  endeavor  and  is  at  the  same  time  to  be  referred  to  about  the  year  70  a.d. 
it  involves  the  persistence  up  to  that  time  of  a  body  of  Christians  in  Jerusalem  who  were 
active  in  the  work  of  propaganda  among  their  compatriots.  But  whatever  facts  we 
have  are  against  such  an  assumption,  .\fter  the  first  dispersion  the  missionary  activity 
of  the  Jerusalem  church  is  vtxy  small.  From  the  time  when  James  supersedes  the 
apostles  in  the  leadership  of  the  local  church  that  church  seems  to  have  lived  on  terms 
of  friendly  toleration  with  the  religious  leaders  of  the  Jews.  Unless  all  our  traditions 
regarding  James  (cf.  Paul,  Gal.  2:12;  Eusebius,  H.E.,  II,  23)  are  astray,  a  church  under 
his  control  would  not  be  likely  to  develop  a  situation  so  acute  as  that  reflected  in  the 
sentences  under  discussion.  The  removal  of  the  Christians  to  Pella  can  hardly  be 
viewed  in  the  light  of  a  missionary  abandonment.  The  personal  interest  was  the 
deciding  one  in  that  case,  Eusebius  and  Epiphanius  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
Moreover,  the  assumption  that  later  the  city  will  acknowledge  the  Messiah  is  not 
in  closest  accord  with  the  imminence  of  destruction  which  sent  the  Christians  forth. 
It  is  more  than  doubtful  if  this  section  would  have  been  connected  with  the  stirring 
events  of  67-70  a.d.  had  not  Matthew  brought  it  into  immediate  context  with  the 
predictions  of  the  destruction  of  the  city.  If  the  Matthean  connection  be  the  original 
it  is  very  hard  to  find  a  reason  for  the  isolation  of  the  tradition  as  it  stands  in  Luke  if  it 
is  there  to  be  placed  in  the  same  historical  situation.     In  themselves  the  Lukan  verses 

575 


58  HISTORICAL  AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

But  the  stubborn  fact  is  that  for  many  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus 
the  efforts  of  his  followers  were  focused  on  a  city  which  is  here  declared  to 
be  abandoned.  Is  it  not  very  probable  that  this  tradition  was  used  to 
account  for  and  to  mark  the  abandonment  of  Jerusalem  from  the  stand- 
point of  evangelization,  or  perhaps  the  break  from  the  purely  Jewish 
mission?  When  was  Jerusalem  so  abandoned?  The  petty  opposition 
of  the  Jewish  leaders  and  the  hostility  which  culminated  against  Stephen 
are  set  forth  in  the  early  chapters  of  Acts.  After  the  death  of  Stephen 
there  is  the  first  separation  from  Jerusalem.'  The  gradual  extension  of 
the  movement  beyond  the  Jews  is  reflected  in  the  cases  of  Philip  and  the 
eunuch,  Peter  and  Simon  the  tanner,  Peter  and  Cornelius,  and  the  first 
definite  work  among  the  Greeks.^  We  find  in  following  the  record  that 
this  break  with  the  Jewish  mission,  which  was  the  culmination  of  a 
process,  took  place  about  the  same  time  as  Herod's  persecution.  This 
was,  as  we  know,  during  the  years  41-44  a.d.  and  may  very  well  be  the 
time  when  our  verses  found  a  use.  In  this  connection  we  must  note, 
whatever  our  opinion  of  its  trustworthiness,  the  tradition  that  a  word  of 
the  Lord  was  given  the  apostles  to  remain  in  Jerusalem  for  twelve  years 
and  then  go  into  the  world.  The  form  of  the  statement  varies,  but  the 
period  of  twelve  years  remains  fairly  constant.^  The  calculation  of  the 
year  of  Peter's  death  depends  on  this  tradition:  30+12+25  =  67. 
While  the  forms  in  which  the  tradition  appears  are  doubtless  apocryphal, 
yet  there  may  be  some  foundation  in  fact  for  the  number  12.  On  this 
calculation  our  verses  would  represent  a  Jerusalem  situation  about  42  a.d. 

This  same  problem  of  the  abandonment  of  the  Jews  because  of  their 
rejection  of  the  gospel  seems  to  appear  again  in  13:6-9  in  the  parable 
of  the  Barren  Fig  Tree  with  the  plea  for  another  year's  grace.  This 
would  serve  well  as  a  protest  against  a  premature  acknowledgment  of 
the  failure  of  the  Jews  to  receive  the  gospel  and  as  a  sorrowful  admission 
on  the  part  of  the  Christians  of  the  justice  of  their  final  break  with  their 
compatriots.  Another  phase  of  the  Jewish  mission  seems  to  appear 
in  13 :  22-30.  The  paucity  of  the  results  of  their  labors  evidently  troubled 
the  Christians  and  the  question  is  plainly  put,  "Are  there  few  that  be 

do  not  refer  to  a  destruction  of  the  city,  but  to  an  abandonment.  The  idea  of  destruc- 
tion has  been  transferred  to  this  by  reason  of  the  Matthean  juxtaposition  of  traditions 
referring  to  two  different  events.  It  seems  very  clear  that  these  words  in  Luke  are 
better  taken  as  referring  to  the  missionary  abandonment  of  the  city  by  the  apostles. 

'Acts  8:2.  ^Actsii:2off. 

3  The  Preaching  of  Peter,  ap.  Clement,  Strom.,  VI,  5,  43;  the  Acta  Petri  cum 
Simone  V,  and  Apollonius,  ap.  Eusebius,  H.E.,  V,  18,  14. 

576 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  59 

saved?"  The  answer  is  a  statement  of  the  difficulty  of  entering  the 
kingdom  (which  would  explain  the  fewness)  and  of  the  need  of  urgency 
because  of  the  imminence  of  the  closing  of  the  door.  When  it  is  too  late 
and  the  Jews  recognize  the  superiority  of  Jesus  and  his  lordship  they 
plead  their  special  advantages — the  Jewish  idea  of  favoritism — but  this 
will  not  avail.  Instead  of  their  admittance  to  the  kingdom,  those  from 
north  and  south  and  east  and  west,  that  is.  Gentiles,  are  to  have  the 
desired  positions.  They  who  were  first  in  choice  and  opportunity  will 
fail  to  attain,  while  those  who  were  considered  outcasts  are  to  be  the 
children  of  the  kingdom.  This  seems  to  be  an  eminently  apt  tradition 
for  the  failure  of  the  Jewish  mission  and  the  exhortation  to  urgent  haste, 
as  well  as  the  statement  that  the  "  wedding  shall  be  furnished  with  guests" 
from  those  who  were  not  "my  people."  While  it  is  not  possible  to 
discriminate  sharply,  such  a  situation  would  probably  obtain  with  some 
acuteness  in  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  decade  of  the  first  century. 

A  further  interest  is  that  which  lays  emphasis  on  almsgiving.  Here 
we  are  met  by  that  somewhat  difficult  sixteenth  chapter,  which,  apart 
from  some  material  which  appears  to  have  little  or  no  connection  with 
the  main  theme  of  the  chapter,  is  devoted  to  this  subject.  The  strange 
parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward  seems  to  have  its  point  in  vs.  9,  the  pre- 
ceding verses  being  its  background  and  those  which  follow  being  in  the 
nature  of  comment.  "Make  to  yourselves  friends  of  the  mammon  of 
unrighteousness;'  that,  when  it  shall  fail,  they  may  receive  you  into  the 
eternal  tabernacles."  One  immediately  recalls  the  very  close  con- 
nection in  a  Jewish  mind  between  almsgiving  and  righteousness.  It  is 
evidently  an  exhortation  to  the  right  use  of  money  and  would  be  ad- 
dressed to  those  who  had  possessions.^  The  poverty  of  the  Jerusalem 
church  as  well  as  the  Jewish  thought  of  almsgiving  would  make  this  a 
very  important  question  and  provide  a  real  reason  for  the  formulation 
and  preservation  of  such  a  tradition  as  this.  The  section  vss.  1-13 
manifests  an  evident  purpose  to  urge  almsgiving  on  those  who  were  able 
to  practice  it  and  to  show  the  superior  value  of  the  true  riches  which 
cannot  be  obtained  if  material  wealth  is  not  properly  administered. 
Vss.  10-13  would  also  comfort  the  Christians  who  suffered  the  privations 
of  poverty.  Vss.  14-18  are  heterogeneous  and  break  the  connection. 
It  is  possible  that  they  came  in  from  the  margin  before  Luke  got  his 
source.  Vs.  19  is  the  logical  sequence  of  vs.  13  and  demonstrates  the 
inability  to  serve  God  and  manmion  as  well  as  the  folly  of  the  man  who 

'Cf.  our  "filthy  lucre." 

'  Note  the  exhortation  in  chap.  1 1  to  the  Pharisees  to  give  alms. 

577 


60  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

has  not  used  his  wealth  on  the  basis  of  the  exhortation  of  vs.  9.  As 
far  as  vs.  25  the  accompanying  thought  is  that  those  who  experience 
poverty  and  hardship  now  are  to  be  encouraged  by  the  glorious  prospect 
of  the  future.  While  this  has  been  a  fairly  constant  Christian  appeal 
through  the  centuries,  the  need  for  such  instruction  seems  to  have  been 
very  acute  in  the  poverty-ridden  Jerusalem  community,  and  a  situation 
into  which  this  fits  admirably  is  thus  found.  Vss.  26-31  are  not  logically 
connected  with  the  general  thought  of  the  chapter.  Again  we  find  the 
troublesome  question  of  the  failure  of  the  Jews  to  accept  Jesus  as  Messiah 
coming  to  the  front.  Does  this  passage  represent  the  church  dealing  with 
the  skepticism  of  the  Jews  as  to  the  resurrection?  In  the  face  of  a 
Jewish  taunt  to  produce  the  risen  Christ,  the  answer  is  that  a  proper 
reading  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  would  enable  them  to  under- 
stand and  believe.  Such  a  pronouncement  from  the  father  of  the  faith- 
ful could  be  used  with  telling  force.^  Again  the  situation  of  this  appended 
fragment  is  Jewish  and,  with  no  little  degree  of  probability,  Jerusalem. 
We  have  now  traversed  this  material,  examining  the  interests  served 
by  it  and  noting  the  situations  where  such  interests  needed  serving. 
The  results  have  been  uniform.  Without  a  single  exception  the  material 
betrays  Palestinian  characteristics,  and  is  of  a  type  fitted  to  serve  in 
situations  which  are  either  known  by  historical  statement  to  have  existed 
there  or  which  can  be  closely  inferred  from  facts  that  have  strong  claims 
to  be  considered  historical.  But  we  can  draw  the  limits  still  more 
closely.  Some  of  the  situations  which  are  served  by  the  material  here 
gathered  are  more  easily  located  in  Jerusalem  than  in  any  other  place. 
It  is  indisputable  that  Jerusalem  was  at  once  the  headquarters  of  Judaism 
and  of  Christianity,  the  abiding-place  of  their  leaders,  the  scene  of  their 
first  conflicts,  and  the  place  where,  beyond  any  other  on  Palestinian  soil, 
the  problems  arising  from  the  separation  of  the  Christian  movement 
from  orthodox  Judaism  and  the  ensuing  bitterness  would  first  make 
themselves  felt.  Thus,  while  it  is  true  that  some  of  the  interests  which 
seem  to  be  served  by  this  material  were  not  by  any  means  confined  to 
Jerusalem,  that  city  was  the  place  where  they  first  needed  serving,  and 
the  place  where  an  effort  would  be  made  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  growing 
and  expanding  organization.  The  conclusion  seems  fair  that  the 
traditions  contained  in  this  section  arose  in  Jerusalem  to  meet  the  ques- 
tions which  confronted  the  Christian  community  there  and  to  control  its 
development. 

'  In  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  Jews  refuse  belief  in  the  presence  of  one  risen  from  the 
dead. 

578 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  61 

As  to  the  date  of  its  crystallization,  we  have  seen  that  the  mission 
interest  is  strongly  reflected,  the  Samaritan  mission  is  specifically  treated, 
the  question  of  Pharisaic  persecution  occupies  a  place  of  prominence,  the 
problems  concerning  the  discipleship  which  would  arise  very  early  are 
faced,  and  the  rejection  of  the  gospel  by  the  Jews  and  their  abandonment 
as  material  for  evangelization,  together  with  the  closely  related  movement 
of  the  Gentile  mission,  appear.  Moreover,  the  development  of  christo- 
logical  thought,  the  progress  of  evangelization,  the  reflections  on  the 
Herodian  family,  and  other  matters  give  us  a  more  or  less  defined  period 
in  which  this  material  came  into  use  and  prominence.  Such  a  period 
would  extend  from  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen  to  the  acceptance  of  the 
Gentile  mission — roughly  speaking,  from  35  a.d.  to  50  or  55  a.d. 

If  these  conclusions  as  to  place  and  time  are  correct  we  gain  from 
them  a  suggestion  as  to  the  form  of  this  material  which  Luke  uses.  The 
subjects  treated  in  the  material  have  been  noted  in  the  general  discussion 
and  it  remains  only  to  draw  attention  to  the  fact  that  invariably  the 
questions  which  lie  behind  the  various  paragraphs  are  questions  related 
to  the  instruction  of  the  Christian  community  and  the  control  of  the 
individual  and  corporate  life.  The  attempts  at  control  are  indirect  in 
some  cases,  but  that  is  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  situation.  The  one 
theological  topic  of  importance,  the  question  of  Christology,  had  in  that 
situation  exceedingly  practical  aspects.  There  are  few  things  more 
probable  than  that  leaders  who  were  bearing  the  "care  of  all  the 
churches"  should  feel  the  need  of  a  manual  of  ecclesiastical  and  religious 
instruction,  such  as  the  Old  Testament  could  not  afford.  It  is  possible 
that  this  block  of  material,  Luke  9:51 — 18: 14,  formed  part  or  the  whole 
of  a  primitive  gospel  document.  The  topics  discussed  are  distinctly 
favorable  to  this  hypothesis,  while  the  character  of  the  material,  dis- 
course rather  than  narrative,  tends  strongly  in  the  same  direction.  A 
study  of  our  early  Christian  literature  will  place  beyond  dispute  that  for  a 
considerable  time  the  only  authorities  which  at  all  approximated  to  co- 
ordination with  the  Old  Testament  were  the  words  of  Jesus  and  the 
declarations  of  the  prophet.  Later,  much  later,  appeal  was  had  to  the 
incidents  of  his  life. 

Regarding  the  formation  of  such  a  document  only  the  probabilities 
of  speculation  are  left  us.  It  is  possible  that  the  method  was  in  the 
main  agglutinative.  A  Christian,  or  group  of  Christians,  possessing  a 
record  of  a  tradition  regarding  Jesus  would  actually  join  it  to  others 
when  such  were  obtained.  Doubtless  the  transition  from  oral  to  written 
transmission  was  very  gradual,  perhaps  spasmodic.     Moreover,  we  are 

579 


62  HISTOKICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

quite  familiar  with  the  method  of  accretion  from  marginal  interpolations. 
That  this  material  was  not  deliberately  arranged  and  ordered  is  sup- 
ported by  the  presence  of  abrupt  turns,  of  breaks  in  logical  connection, 
and  passages  evidently  interpolated  in  an  earlier  combination.  This, 
together  with  the  presence  of  this  material  in  its  present  form  in  the  Third 
Gospel  and  the  convergence  of  interests  and  situations  upon  one  period 
and  one  place,  is  an  argument  in  favor  of  considering  this  a  document  from 
the  Jerusalem  church.  How  far  it  had  been  reworked  before  it  reached 
the  hand  of  Luke  one  cannot  say,  and  the  possibility  is  by  no  means 
precluded  that  the  author  of  the  Third  Gospel  himself  left  his  imprint 
upon  it.  But  there  are  a  few  indications  which  point  in  the  direction  of 
a  composite  document,  and  they  are  such  as  to  suggest  that  the  material 
was  in  approximately  its  present  form  when  Luke  incorporated  it.  There 
are  two  startings  for  Jerusalem,  one  at  the  opening  of  the  section  9:51, 
and  the  other  in  13 :  22.  Has  all  the  time  between  9:51  and  13 :  22  been 
spent  in  Samaria  and  Judea  ?  If  so,  how  shall  we  account  for  the  strange 
reference  to  Herod  in  13 :  31  ?  A  very  strange  geographical  note  appears 
in  17:11,  where  Jesus  is  represented  as  passing  along  the  borders  of 
Samaria  and  Galilee  going  to  Jerusalem.  It  is  incredible  that  this  is  due 
to  the  author  of  our  gospel,  but  is  quite  comprehensible  in  a  primitive 
agglutination  of  documents  with  the  intent  to  preserve  everything  about 
Jesus  for  practical  purposes.  There  are  also  two  groups  of  Samaritan 
material:  (i)  9:51-56  and  10:25-37;  (2)17:11-19.  The  discussion  of 
the  question  of  discipleship  appears  in  more  than  one  place.  Other 
interests  might  be  traced  in  the  same  way  and  would  give  force  to  the 
suggestion  that  this  material  as  it  came  into  Luke's  hand  was  made  up 
of  at  least  two  smaller  documents  representing  similar  interests,  which 
documents  had  been  earlier  combined  into  one.  The  limits  of  these 
documents  might  be  given  as  9:51 — 13:21;  13:22 — 18:14.  Within 
these,  again,  are  suggestions  of  a  composite  character,  which  will  not  be 
traced  here.  But  however  and  whenever  this  material  assumed  its 
present  form,  it  goes  back  for  its  first  literary  formulation  to  the  Chris- 
tian church  at  Jerusalem.  If  a  suggestion  were  to  be  hazarded  it  would 
be  that  it  took  literary  form  when  the  exigencies  of  the  missionary 
expansion  of  Christianity  rendered  it  impossible  for  all  or  even  the 
greater  part  of  the  adherents  to  receive  the  "spoken  word"  from  the 
"eyewitnesses." 


580 


II.    AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  NON-MARKAN  MATERIAL 
CONTAINED  IN  LUKE,  CHAPS.  3-8 

The  material  which  forms  the  basis  of  our  discussion  in  this  section 
is  found  in  Luke,  chaps.  3-8,  and  includes  the  following:  3:7-20;  4:1-30; 
5 :  i-i  I ;  6 :  20-49;  7  •  ^ — ^ :  3.  It  will  be  observed  that  this  material  does 
not  present  itself  in  a  compact  form,  as  was  the  case  with  the  previous 
section.  It  is  interpolated  in  the  Markan  scheme  in  places  which  seemed 
fitting  to  the  evangelist.  There  are  a  few  coincidences  with  Mark  even 
in  the  material  we  have  called  non-Markan,  e.g.,  Mark  i :  7-8,  Luke  3 :  16; 
Mark  1:12-13,  Luke  4:1-2;  Mark  1:14-15,  Luke  4:14-15.  The  first 
of  these  is  a  word  of  the  Baptist  regarding  the  "mightier  than  I,"  which 
might  well  have  stood  both  in  Mark  and  in  the  peculiar  source,  for  the 
parallels  are  not  accurate.  The  second  is  an  introductory  statement  to 
the  temptation  and  has  sufficient  variation  at  least  to  raise  the  question 
whether  Luke  is  not  here  independent  of  Mark.  The  third  coincidence 
is  a  mere  transition  from  the  scene  of  the  temptation  to  Galilee.  None 
of  these  figures  at  all  seriously  in  the  general  problem.  Regarding  the 
rest  of  the  material  we  note  that  Matthew  has  some  of  it  almost  verbatim, 
some  with  more  or  less  divergence,  while  some  is  peculiarly  Lukan. 

A  study  of  this  material  gives  the  impression  that  two,  if  not  three, 
interests  lay  back  of  its  formulation  and  use  by  the  early  Christian  com- 
munity. There  are  two  types  of  material,  one  being  narrative,  the  other 
discourse.  To  one  who  follows  these  sections  uninterrupted  by  the 
Markan  basis  the  difference  in  type  is  striking.  Any  statement  as  to 
the  bearing  of  these  types  and  interests  on  unity  or  plurality  of  sources 
will  be  postponed  until  the  material  has  been  subjected  to  an  examination. 

I.      THE   SERMON   ON   THE   PLAIN 

We  shall  consider  first  the  discourse-material  found  in  Luke  6 :  20-49, 
known  as  the  Sermon  on  the  Plain.  The  relationship  of  this  sermon  to 
that  which  appears  in  the  First  Gospel  will  not  be  directly  discussed. 
The  question  is  a  complicated  and  delicate  one  and  would  involve  a 
greater  attention  to  the  literary  problem  than  lies  within  our  province. 
Reasoning  a  priori  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  great  likelihood  that 
this  quintessence  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  would  assume  more  than  one 
form  and  would  be  in  somewhat  general  circulation.  It  is  generally 
581]  63 


64  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

agreed  that  Matthew's  sermon  as  we  now  have  it  is  composite,  but  we 
shall  follow  the  question  of  relation  no  farther.  We  pass  to  notice  some 
facts  regarding  the  Lukan  sermon  and  some  interests  which  appear  to 
be  served  by  it. 

As  the  sermon  stands  before  us  in  Luke  it  is  manifestly  and  exclusively 
a  discourse  addressed  to  the  community.  It  is  true  that  in  vs.  17 
mention  is  made  of  a  "great  multitude  of  disciples"  who  are  among  "a 
great  number  of  people"  who  ostensibly  hear  the  sermon,  but  the  address 
is  to  the  disciples  and  is  direct.  It  is  the  disciples  who  are  "ye  poor," 
etc.  In  the  early  part  of  Matthew's  sermon  the  address  is  indirect  and 
the  blessings  are  pronounced  on  classes.  In  Matt.  5:11-12,  where  the 
approximation  to  Luke  is  close,  the  direct  form  of  address  is  used. 
There  is  here,  however,  no  suggestion  that  the  blessings  and  statements 
have  a  wider  application  than  to  those  who  are  of  the  inner  circle. 
This  points  rather  definitely  in  the  direction  of  the  early  church  when  the 
kingdom  was  the  peculiar  possession  of  those  who  acknowledged  Jesus 
as  Messiah  and  confessed  him — in  other  words,  the  disciples. 

The  first  section  of  the  sermon,  vss.  20-26,  deals  with  the  economic 
and  social  condition  of  the  community  in  contrast  to  that  of  outside 
groups.  "Blessed  are  ye  poor"  is  a  reference  to  economic  poverty  and 
physical  privation.  01  Treivwi/Tes  has  a  physical  reference.  The  general 
sorrows  and  griefs  of  life  arising  from  a  variety  of  causes  are  covered  by 
ol  KXatovTes.  The  twenty-second  verse  deals  with  the  question  of  so- 
cial ostracism,  which  developed  into  contempt  and  calumny  and  which 
had  its  basis  in  religious  differences.  Over  against  these  distressing 
conditions  are  set  promises  which  are  to  be  the  basis  of  comfort  and  the 
inspiration  to  duty.  To  the  TTTw^ot,  destitute  economically  in  a  broad 
sense,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  promised.  Whatever  may  have  been  the 
thought  of  Jesus  regarding  the  kingdom,  however  ethical  and  present  it 
was  in  his  teaching,  it  was  a  task  of  no  little  difficulty  to  strip  the  concept 
of  the  material  and  objective  in  the  minds  of  Christians.  While  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  phrase  as  indicating  their  present  possession  of  a  spiritual 
blessing  which  overcomes  the  disadvantages  of  7rTw;(eta  may  be  possible, 
it  seems  much  more  probable  that  for  the  early  church  there  remained 
in  the  concept  of  the  kingdom  many  sensuous  phases  which  were  to  be  a 
future  quid  pro  quo  for  present  discomforts  and  privations.  The  supper 
in  the  kingdom,  the  high  position  of  authority  and  esteem,  would  serve 
to  extract  the  sting  from  present  disability.  One  can  easily  understand 
an  eschatological  turn  in  rj  ^aa-iXcM  tov  dtov.  The  promises  which 
offset  the  hungering  and  mourning  look  in  the  same  direction.     It  is 

582 


SOME    NON-MARKAN    ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  65 

hard  to  avoid  the  feelmg  that  the  satisfaction  of  x°P'^"'^^W^^^^  is 
physical,  and  ycAao-ere  is  not  the  ideal  expression  for  a  highly  spiritual 
consolation.  The  bitterness  of  social  isolation  and  the  burden  of 
slander  was  to  be  borne  lightly  in  view  of  the  fact  that  a  great  reward  was 
set  apart  for  them,  Iv  tw  ovpav(^.  But  it  was  cV  tw  otpavw  that  the 
Messiah  was;  from  the  heavens  he  was  to  come  to  receive  them  and 
they  were  to  share  his  kingdom.  So,  then,  the  basis  of  comfort  is  parti- 
cipation in  the  kingdom,  prosperity,  happiness,  and  a  reward  awaiting 
in  heaven.^  A  most  unmistakably  Jewish  touch  appears  in  vs.  236; 
''In  the  same  manner  did  their  fathers  unto  the  prophets."  One  can- 
not fail  to  recall  at  this  point  the  statements  of  Luke  11:42  ff.,  where 
the  fathers  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  lawyers  are  charged  with  killing  the 
prophets.  It  is  at  once  evident  that  this  section  represents  an  attempt 
to  console  the  church  in  the  face  of  Jewish  hostility  and  oppression. 

Vss.  24-26  contain  four  woes  directed  against  classes  which  are  in 
straight  contrast  with  the  classes  of  the  Christian  community  mentioned 
above.  The  wealth,  the  luxury,  the  gaiety,  and  the  social  prestige  which 
the  opponents  of  the  early  church  enjoyed  must  have  been  a  bitter 
experience  and  have  constituted  a  serious  problem  for  the  church.  Only 
in  such  a  reversal  of  conditions  as  is  here  pictured  could  the  righteousness 
of  God  and  the  value  of  the  kingdom  be  maintained.  That  piety  must 
bring  prosperity  and  evil  must  be  punished  was  the  age-long  cry  of  the 
Jew.  By  all  the  nation,  save  by  a  few  of  the  elite,  these  rewards  and 
punishments  were  thought  of  in  terms  of  the  material.  The  material 
thought  died  hard;  in  fact,  it  is  not  quite  without  life  in  modern  times. 
The  purely  spiritual  character  of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  the  idea  that  "  vir- 
tue is  its  own  reward,"  were  matters  of  exceedingly  slow  development. 
It  is  not  to  the  discredit  of  the  leaders  and  preachers  of  the  early  church 
that  they  appealed  by  means  of  the  tangible  and  material.  The  ascetic 
element  in  the  verses  is  in  accord  with  an  interest  which  was  discovered 
in  the  material  considered  in  the  previous  chapter.  The  reference  to 
false  prophets  is  essentially  Jewish.^ 

This  first  section  of  the  sermon  reflects  the  early  Christian  movement, 
which  is  poor,  lowly,  and  persecuted.  To  offset  the  discouragement 
which  pressed  upon  the  community  the  promise  of  a  future  happiness 
already  adumbrated  is  given.     The  teaching  of  these  verses  would  meet 

'  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  point  out  how  the  crudeness  and  abruptness  of  these 
sentences  have  been  softened  by  Matthew,  but  a  comparison  of  the  Matthean  account 
with  that  of  Luke  will  serve  to  emphasize  the  material  and  economic  aspect. 

^  Cf.  Jer.,  chap.  22;  I  Kings,  chap.  22. 

583 


66  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

directly  the  pressing  practical  need  which  arose  from  such  a  situation, 
and  would  also  serve  as  a  call  to  fuller  trust  and  devotion.  The  poverty 
and  oppression  which  lie  back  of  these  words  correspond  admirably  to 
what  we  know  of  the  situation  in  Jerusalem. 

The  following  paragraph  of  the  sermon,  vss.  27-38,  deals  with  the 
relation  of  the  members  of  the  community  to  outsiders.  The  sharp  and 
bitter  economical  contrast  indicated  in  the  Beatitudes  and  Woes  could 
not  fail  to  tend  in  the  direction  of  an  attitude  of  harshness  and  an  intense 
feeling  between  the  two  groups,  the  church  and  the  outsider.  Such  a 
situation  would  require  close  attention  and  control.  The  predominant 
characteristic  of  the  Christian  is  to  be  love  and  this  is  to  determine  his 
conduct  toward  his  fellow-creatures.  Their  maledictions  and  ill  treat- 
ment are  to  be  met  by  the  Christian  virtues  of  benediction  and  inter- 
cession. Positive  opposition  to  the  church  and  physical  injury  are  to  be 
met  by  a  calm  non-resistance,  and  a  spirit  of  generosity  that  is  beyond 
expectation  is  to  have  free  play.  No  wanton  offense  is  to  be  given 
to  outsiders,  but  by  all  lawful  means  Christians  are  to  seek  to  heal  the 
differences.  Recognition  of  the  fact  that  retaliation  is  the  natural 
thing  is  implicit,  but  it  would  be  neither  right  nor  wise.  Two  motives 
are  urged:  a  spiritual  one  and  a  practical  one.  The  example  of  the  Most 
High,  whose  sons  they  claim  to  be,  should  impel  them  in  the  right  direc- 
tion. His  mercies  are  toward  the  unthankful.  Moreover,  it  is  a  wise 
policy  so  to  conduct  one's  self.  Non-retaliation  and  generosity  of  spirit 
and  treatment  will  go  far  to  gain  for  them  the  desired  leniency,  and  will 
do  much  toward  disarming  their  opponents.  The  principle  of  vs.  3S6 
is  of  double  application. 

This  paragraph  represents  a  phase  of  the  disintegration  of  the  old 
Jewish  idea  of  favoritism.  The  process  required  much  work  as  Chris- 
tianity expanded.  It  was  the  first  great  practical  problem,  and  in  many 
ways  the  hardest,  which  primitive  Christianity  had  to  solve,  and  the 
direction  of  its  solution  was  to  do  much  to  determine  the  future  of  the 
new  religion.  The  words  of  this  section  throw  a  fine  light  on  the  con- 
tinued influence  of  the  profound  ethicism  of  Jesus. 

The  relation  of  the  members  of  the  community  to  each  other  is  the 

subject  of  vss.  39-45.     Attention  should  be  called  to  the  unsuitability  of 

such  an  address  to  the  disciples  in  the  ostensible  situation.'     Up  to  this 

'  It  is  quite  possible  that  such  an  attitude  may  at  some  time  have  been  assumed  by 
the  disciples.  The  request  of  the  mother  of  James  and  John  indicates  this.  But  such 
could  not  well  have  been  the  case  so  early  as  the  sermon.  Even  if  it  were,  is  it  probable 
that  a  tradition  so  uncomplimentary  to  the  leaders  of  the  movement  would  have  been 
preser\^ed  unless  it  was  of  value  in  a  specific  situation  ? 

584 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  67 

time  there  has  been  in  the  relation  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples  no  evidence 
that  any  of  them  are  assuming  the  position  of  leaders.  In  any  case,  that 
was  the  very  purpose  for  which  he  had  selected  them.  But  the  general 
attitude  of  the  disciples  has  been  hesitant  and  timid.  In  the  early 
community,  however,  the  self-preference  of  members  would  be  a  very 
probable  phenomenon.  Those  who  felt  themselves  to  be  in  any  way 
superior  by  position,  training,  or  spiritual  gifts  would  easily  assume  the 
position  of  leaders.  Does  this  question  represent  a  situation  when  com- 
parative novices  are  presuming  to  lead  and  to  teach?  Grave  dangers 
would  attend  such  a  proceeding.  The  use  of  the  word  KaTr;prt(7/AcVos 
indicates  their  present  unequipped  condition.' 

It  appears  that  some  of  the  self-appointed  leaders  have,  from  their 
lofty  spiritual  height,  criticized  their  brethren  and  looked  at  them  with 
contemptuous  disapproval.  The  stubborn  fact,  however,  remains  that 
those  who  have  arrogated  to  themselves  the  right  to  sit  in  judgment 
are  afflicted  with  more  grievous  faults  than  those  whom  they  condemn. 
The  teaching  is  very  clear  that  the  important  matter  is  the  ethical  life, 
not  the  spectacular  and  the  prominent.  That  such  criticism  and  such  an 
attitude  have  become  manifest  is  a  sufficient  indication  of  the  necessity 
for  a  change  in  the  inner  life,  of  which  these  things  are  but  the  expression. 

Thus  it  would  appear  that  under  the  excellent  ethical  admonitions 
of  these  verses  there  lies  an  attempt  to  meet  an  exceedingly  practical 
question  of  polity  and  conduct.  In  a  new  organization  scarcely  con- 
scious of  itself,  certainly  with  no  clear  apprehension  of  its  full  significance, 
with  its  various  elements  requiring  care  and  adjustment,  the  regulation 
of  impulsive  and  somewhat  arrogant  members  would  be  a  matter  of  no 
small  importance.  As  to  the  place  where  such  a  need  would  be  felt,  it 
is  admitted  that  it  would  arise  in  many  places,  but  it  is  probable  that  the 
Jerusalem  community  early  felt  the  pressure  of  the  problem.  There 
the  regularly  qualified  leaders  were  present  to  exercise  their  authority 
and  control.  There  also  at  the  time  of  the  disputations  in  the  synagogue 
of  the  Libertines  and  the  appointment  of  the  deacons  were  those 
"full  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  of  good  report"  who  were  forging  to  the 
front.  In  fact,  from  the  time  when  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  began  to 
be  manifest  there  were  present  factors  which  could  produce  the  situation 
which  apparently  lies  behind  the  admonitions  of  these  verses.  Very 
early  in  the  history  of  the  movement  such  control  as  we  have  here  would 
be  needed. 

'  Cf.  the  problem  regarding  speaking  with  tongues  and  of  spiritual  gifts  with  which 
Paul  had  to  deal,  I  Cor.,  chap.  12. 

585 


68  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

The  sermon  doses  with  a  section,  vss.  46-49,  which  emphasizes  the 
supremacy  of  inner  rehgion.  The  marks  of  a  Christian  in  the  early  days 
were  behef  and  confession.'  In  the  first  dawn  of  the  movement  the  fun- 
damental matter  was  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  Confession  was  to 
follow  spontaneously.  Later,  however,  under  the  stress  of  opposition, 
confession  was  emphasized  as  marking  the  true  Christian.  To  "witness 
a  good  confession"  was  "a  consummation  devoutly  to  be  wished." 
When  the  attempt  was  made  to  compel  allegiance  to  the  empire  by 
forcing  a  confession  of  the  emperor  as  Lord,  more  than  ever  would  the 
confession  of  Jesus  be  the  mark  of  a  Christian.^  We  shall  not  be  far  wrong 
in  claiming  that  from  an  early  time  strong  insistence  was  made  upon  an 
oral  confession  of  Jesus  as  Lord.  Under  such  circumstances  the  external 
act  could  easily  incur  the  danger  of  being  substituted  to  a  greater  or 
less  degree  for  the  inner  experience.  This  paragraph  makes  an  excellent 
corrective  for  the  distorted  idea  that  the  naming  of  Jesus  as  Kupios 
has  anything  essential  to  do  with  vital  Christianity.  The  essentials  are 
rather  the  inner  transformation  of  the  life  and  its  control  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  Jesus. 

The  encroachments  of  externality  are  so  general  that  it  is  impossible 
to  state  a  definite  situation  out  of  which  alone  this  corrective  would  grow. 
It  is,  however,  scarcely  credible  that  Jerusalem  and  its  Christian  com- 
munity so  recently  from  Judaism  and  surrounded  by  strong  Judaistic 
influences  could  escape  this  danger. 

It  is  not  possible  to  read  this  discourse  and  fail  to  be  impressed  by  its 
compact  unity.  It  moves  carefully,  steadily,  and  logically  from  thought 
to  thought  and  is  complete  in  itself.  Moreover,  the  literary  style  of  the 
section  is  deserving  of  attention.  The  sermon  is  composed  of  sharp, 
pointed  sayings,  close,  clear  contrasts,  and  moves  on  steadily  from  state- 
ment to  statement  to  a  conclusion.  There  is  balance  of  thought  and 
expression  which  is  in  a  measure  different  from  anything  else  in  the 
gospels.  It  is  not  the  parallelism  of  the  Hebrew  style;  rather  it  is  a 
style  affecting  the  Stoic  diatribe.  In  some  parts  of  the  Pauline  literature 
there  is  an  approximation  to  it.^ 

iLukei2:8;   Rom.  10:9-10;   Phil.  2:11;  IJohn4:is. 

'  The  story  of  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp  shows  the  tenacity  of  the  idea;  cf.  The 
Martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  ix,  x. 

3  The  influence  of  the  literary  forms  of  Hellenic  philosophic  culture  on  New  Testa- 
ment thought  and  expression  has  been  investigated  only  in  very  recent  times.  It  is 
natural  that  the  Pauline  writings  should  be  the  first  to  come  under  scrutiny,  but  there 
is  no  guaranty  that  the  other  New  Testament  books  have  entirely  escaped  the  pervasive 

586 


SOME ,  NON-MARKAN    ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  69 

The  completeness  of  the  section  and  the  somewhat  distmctive 
literary  form  suggest  that  the  author  of  the  gospel  took  an  existing 
source  and  incorporated  it  without  serious  alteration.  The  perfection 
of  its  literary  form  is  evidence  for  its  existence  in  written  form,  while  the 
value  of  its  practical  suggestions  contained  in  its  paragraphs  would  be 
sufficient  warrant  for  its  preservation  in  this  attractive  way.  Evidently 
in  its  present  form  we  have  here  a  sermon  to  early  Christians.  The 
Jewish  touches  give  clear  evidence  of  its  Palestinian  origin,  while  the 
influence  of  Stoic  literary  forms,  if  accepted,  suggests  a  Hellenistic  circle. 
Of  all  the  Palestinian  centers  Jerusalem  has  the  greatest  claim  to  con- 
sideration, for  reasons  that  are  quite  obvious.'  The  sermon  appears  to 
be  the  application  of  the  ideas  of  Jesus  to  certain  church  situations  which 
have  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  controlled  the  emphasis.  Its  isolation 
in  the  Lukan  Gospel,  combined  with  its  literary  form  and  the  character 
of  its  thought-content,  strongly  indicates  a  separate  source.  It  came 
from  a  circle  not  far  removed  from  that  from  which  the  Perean  material 
emanated. 

II.      THE  REMAINDER   OF   THE  MATERIAL 

We  pass  now  to  consider  the  rest  of  the  peculiarly  Lukan  material 
contained  in  these  chapters.     The  broken  and  scattered  condition  of 

influence  of  Hellenism.  On  the  matter  of  the  diatribe,  cf.  Rud.  Bultmann,  Der  Sill  der 
Paidlnlschen  Predlgt  und  die  kynisch-stolsche  Diatribe;  P.  Wendland,  Die  hellenislisch- 
romlsche  Kultur,  pp.  39  fl. ;   Die  Llleraliirjormen. 

'  The  combination  of  an  origin  on  Palestinian  soil  with  the  Cynic-Stoic  literary 
tendency  may  seem  to  some  strange  and  unnatural.  But  it  is  possible  that  we  under- 
rate the  Hellenistic  influence  in  some  Palestinian  centers,  especially  in  Jerusalem.  It 
is  true  the  presence  of  the  temple  with  its  priesthood  and  its  ritual  was  a  strong  con- 
servative influence.  But  the  Sadducees  who  were  intrenched  there  were  hospitable 
to  Hellenic  culture.  It  is  not  likely  that  the  constant  intercourse  between  Jerusalem 
and  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  would  fail  of  some  influence.  The  presence  of  a  Hellenistic 
synagogue,  or  Hellenistic  synagogues,  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  6:8  ff.)  is  directly  in  point 
here.  The  fact  that  the  members  are  represented  as  opposing  Stephen  does  not  con- 
stitute a  serious  objection;  cf.  Encyc.  Bib.,  cols.  4787-88.  Stephen  himself  may  have 
been  a  Hellenist  and  have  been  impregnated  with  the  views  and  ideas  of  Hellenism. 
There  were  Hellenists  in  the  Jerusalem  Christian  community  (.\cts  6:  i).  Philo  is  an 
example  of  a  Hellenist  who  remained  a  Jew,  but  who  nevertheless  laid  under  tribute 
whatever  of  Greek  culture  he  could  use.  Josephus  might  also  be  cited.  With  the 
presence  of  a  body  of  Hellenists  in  Jerusalem,  with  the  constant  stream  of  outside 
influence,  and  with  the  characteristic  aptitude  of  the  Jews  to  seize  and  use  the  best  that 
other  peoples  produced,  there  is  no  serious  reason  for  refusing  to  admit  the  possibility 
that  a  Jewish  or  Hellenistic  preacher  in  Jerusalem  might  adopt  the  style  which  had 
been  so  successful  in  the  hands  of  its  exponents.  If  Paul  made  use  of  this  Stoic  agency 
our  argument  is  by  so  much  the  stronger;   cf.  Bultmann,  op.  oil. 

587 


70  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

these  sections  renders  the  interests  which  lie  behind  them  shghtly  more 
difficult  to  recover,  but  a  careful  examination  will  show  that  there  are 
interests  of  a  dominating  character.  There  are  two  groups  of  material 
which  have  a  common  bond  in  that  they  relate  to  John  the  Baptist,  and 
for  convenience  here  these  will  be  treated  together.  They  are  3:7-20 
and  7:18-35. 

An  early  relation  of  Jesus  and  John  the  Baptist  seems  to  be  well 
founded.  It  is  not  easy  to  discover  any  reason  for  the  production  of 
such  a  tradition.  Its  persistence  can  be  due  only  to  its  correspondence 
to  actual  fact.  But  in  respect  to  the  relation  as  generally  conceived 
there  are  some  difficulties.  There  can  be  little  doubt  as  to  the  strength 
and  character  of  the  impression  which  the  Baptist  made  on  the  people 
of  this  country.  "  They  held  John  as  a  prophet."  In  the  opinion  of  the 
people  his  office  and  function  was  that  of  a  preacher  of  righteousness. 
Moreover,  we  cannot  be  oblivious  of  the  persistence  of  the  Johannine 
movement  and  its  possible  status  as  a  rival  to  Christianity.^  These 
facts  do  not  quite  accord  with  the  representation  of  this  man's  gracious 
withdrawal  before  the ' '  mightier  than  I . "  The  early  relationship  of  Jesus 
and  John  and  the  subsequent  separation  were  matters  to  which  the  early 
Christians  had  to  give  consideration  when  they  came  to  adjust  their 
new  views  of  Jesus  to  his  earthly  career.  The  cause  of  the  separation 
does  not  belong  to  our  discussion  here.  The  relative  positions  and  tasks 
of  these  two  great  figures  were  early  explained  by  assigning  to  John  the 
position  of  forerunner  to  the  Messiah.  Prophecies  from  various  parts  of 
the  Old  Testament  were  adduced  in  support  of  this  claim.  This  arrange- 
ment not  only  solved  the  troublesome  question  of  the  relationship  existing 
between  the  movements  and  their  founders,  but  served  to  demonstrate 
and  enhance  the  messianic  dignity  of  Jesus.  These  are  considerations 
which  we  must  bear  in  mind  as  we  proceed  to  an  examination  of  the 
representation  of  the  Baptist  in  the  material  before  us. 

We  are  justified  in  inferring  from  the  paucity  of  the  material  that 
we  possess  a  very  small  part  of  the  message  of  John.  We  must  deal, 
however,  with  what  we  have  and  endeavor  to  discover  the  spirit  and 
thought  of  his  preaching.  The  first  thing  to  be  noticed  is  that  John  is 
represented  as  attempting  to  disturb  that  feeling  of  security  in  Abra- 
hamic  descent  which  characterized  the  Jewish  people.  The  lines  of 
nationalism  and  favoritism  are  well-nigh  obliterated,  and  an  appeal  is 
made  to  base  the  life  on  ethical  principles.  It  is  true  that  there  are 
foregleams  of  these  ideas  in  the  great  prophets,  but  it  is  surprising  to 

'  Cf.  above,  p.  44. 

588 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  71 

hear  this  note  emerging  from  an  atmosphere  of  legalism.  That,  however, 
is  not  an  insurmountable  difficulty.  But  it  is  perplexing,  on  the  assump- 
tion of  its  genuineness,  to  find  that  no  appeal  was  made  to  this  teaching 
in  the  Jewish  controversy.  Moreover,  there  appears  to  have  been  no 
opposition  to  John  on  the  part  of  the  religious  leaders.  This  is  indeed 
strange  if  he  attacked  one  of  their  most  precious  heritages.  But  since 
John  was  persona  grata  to  the  Jews,  a  message  such  as  we  have  here  from 
his  lips  would  be  of  great  value  and  telling  effect  in  a  Christian  appeal 
to  Jews  who  were  clinging  to  their  ideas  of  national  favor  and  covenant 
privilege.'  Is  there  not  a  subtle  and  significant  reference  to  the  Gentile 
mission  in  the  words,  "God  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children 
unto  Abraham"  ?  The  situations  which  the  peculiar  turn  of  John's  mes- 
sage as  here  set  forth  would  meet  are  church  situations  during  the  struggle 
with  the  Jews  over  Jewish  privilege  and  Gentile  admission. 

In  vss.  10-14  we  have  a  specific  application  of  the  general  ethical 
attitude  to  various  classes.  "The  multitude"  is  a  term  too  indefinite 
to  deny  to  any  specific  situation.  It  fits  the  preaching  of  John  and  of 
the  Christian  missionaries  alike.  But  the  "publicans"  as  a  class  yield- 
ing to  his  exhortations  strikes  the  reader  as  strange.  Elsewhere  Jesus 
represents  himself  as  being  criticized  in  strong  contrast  to  John  for  asso- 
ciating with  publicans  and  sinners.^  If  John  came  into  close  contact 
with  them  this  comparison  loses  much  of  its  point.  However,  the 
possibility  is  by  no  means  excluded  that  John's  appeals  were  heeded  by 
them.  Little  or  nothing  of  such  an  effect  of  John's  preaching  appears 
in  the  course  of  Jesus'  ministry.  The  third  class  mentioned  is  the 
soldiers.  Did  these  go  to  hear  John  ?  Did  they  yield  themselves  to  a 
Jewish  idea  and  submit  to  its  control  ?  It  is  possible,  but  one  cannot 
fail  to  wonder  if  Roman  soldiers  went  to  the  desert  to  hear  a  Jewish 
fanatic  preach.^  On  the  other  hand,  Christianity  working  in  the  cities 
came  into  contact  with,  and  made  appeal  to,  these  very  classes.  In  such 
an  appeal  and  mission  this  tradition  would  be  of  value.  The  whole 
paragraph  is,  however,  little  more  than  a  background  for  the  succeeding 
verses,  in  which  John  declares  the  superiority  and  announces  the  judicial 
function  of  Jesus.  This  is  the  climax  of  this  section  and  to  it  the  preced- 
ing statements  are  subservient. 

'  Cf.  the  attitude  of  Paul  to  Abrahamic  descent,  Rom.,  chap.  4;  Gal.,  chap.  3. 

»Luke  7:33-35- 

3  That  they  were  Romans,  or  at  least  non-Jews,  is  clear;  cf.  Schiirer,  Geschichte 
des  jiidischen  Volkes,  3  Aufl.,  I,  459-60;  History  of  the  Jewish  People,  Div.  I.,  Vol.  II, 
p.  50. 

589 


72  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

The  other  material  in  which  John  appears  is  found  in  7 :  18-35.  This 
section  also  is  difficult  by  reason  of  the  incorporation  of  the  idea  of  the 
forerunner.  At  the  outset  there  is  a  lack  of  confidence  on  the  part  of 
John  regarding  this  personage  whom  he  is  supposed  to  announce.  There 
is  genuine  wonderment  and  perplexity.  His  movement  is  not  merged 
in  that  of  Jesus,  the  messengers  are  still  "his  disciples."  The  depressing 
effect  of  John's  imprisonment  is  scarcely  an  adequate  explanation  for  his 
attitude  when  compared  with  other  parts  of  the  Baptist  tradition.  There 
are  but  two  matters  in  the  section  which  call  for  our  consideration.  The 
first  is  the  favorable  attitude  assumed  tow^ard  the  "people"  and  the 
"publicans,"  and  the  hostile  attitude  taken  toward  the  religious  leaders 
represented  by  the  "Pharisees  and  lawyers."  Here  again  we  have  a 
reflection  of  the  struggle  of  the  early  Christians  against  the  Jewish  leaders 
which  was  so  abundantly  manifest  in  the  Perean  material.  The  other 
matter,  and  it  is  by  far  the  more  important,  is  the  tribute  of  Jesus  to 
John  the  Baptist.  Not  by  any  means  the  least  interesting  aspect  of 
this  tribute  is  its  limitations.  With  the  symbolic  answer  which  Jesus 
gave  to  the  Baptist's  query  the  incident  would  naturally  be  considered 
ended.  But  the  fact  is  that  the  question  and  its  answer  are  far  less 
significant  than  that  which  follows.  The  words  of  Jesus  constitute  a 
splendid  eulogy  on  the  leader  of  the  movement  with  which  he  had  prob- 
ably identified  himself  at  the  beginning  and  with  which  he  had  broken 
when  he  found  himself  differing  from  it  in  thought  and  aim.  John  is 
placed  at  the  very  head  of  prophetic  teachers.  But  with  whatever  pres- 
tige this  brought,  to  which  is  added  that  of  being  the  "preparer,"  John 
is  distinctly  shut  out  from  the  kingdom  of  God.^  Here  again  the 
two  movements  are  sharply  differentiated.  John's  position  and  John's 
movement  are  represented  as  immeasurably  inferior  to  the  position  of 
Jesus  and  his  movement. 

In  this  Johannine  material  two  main  interests  are  discoverable.  The 
first  is  the  demonstration  of  the  inferior  position  occupied  by  John  and 
the  minor  importance  of  his  movement  as  merely  preparatory  to  that  of 
Jesus.  This  relative  position  is  admitted  by  John  himself  according  to 
3:15-17,  and  is  claimed  by  Jesus  in  7:27,  28b.  The  chief  situation 
which  lies  behind  this  interest  is  the  necessity  of  dealing  with  the  per- 
sistency of  the  Johannine  sect  and  the  endeavor  to  absorb  it  in  the 
Christian  movement.  The  second  interest  is  the  converse  of  the  former 
and  is  an  attempt  to  establish  the  superiority  of  Jesus  as  a  person  and  a 

'  Is  the  real  connection  of  a  Jdhannine  tradition  broken  by  the  insertion  of  vss. 
27  and  2Sb? 

590 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  73 

religious  leader  with  the  corresponding  excellence  of  this  movement. 
This  superiority  of  Jesus  is  declared  by  John  and  is  claimed  by  Jesus. 
Thus  one  interest  is  a  question  of  policy  and  diplomacy,  and  the  other  a 
theological  or  polemical  one.  The  diplomacy  of  the  first  interest  is  shown 
in  the  generous  estimate  placed  on  the  person  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the 
very  great  importance  assigned  to  his  movement  as  secondary  only  to 
that  of  Jesus.  This  conciliatory  attitude  would  do  much  to  break  down 
the  opposition  and  prejudice  of  the  members  of  the  Johannine  sect.  The 
second  interest  will  receive  further  attention  in  the  following  paragraphs. 
We  consider  now  the  temptation  narrative  contained  in  Luke  4: 1-13. 
This  is  a  distinctly  christological  section  and  marks  a  phase  of  the  adjust- 
ment of  the  facts  of  Jesus'  earthly  career  to  the  thoughts  which  were 
current  in  the  early  church  regarding  him.  The  view  of  the  temptation 
taken  by  the  source  which  Luke  here  follows  is  different  from  that  of 
Mark,  who  sees  in  the  conflict  of  Jesus  with  Satan  amid  the  beasts  a 
cosmic  victory  of  the  Messiah.  It  is  quite  true  that  the  Lukan  source 
considers  the  temptation  in  the  light  of  a  victory  over  the  evil  spirits 
represented  by  6  Sta^oXos  and  thereby  enhances  the  figure  and  person- 
ality of  Jesus,  but  that  does  not  exhaust  the  significance  of  the  narrative. 
The  somewhat  detailed  discussion  of  the  three  temptations  serves  to 
explain  stubborn  facts  which  seemed  to  conflict  with  the  messianic 
dignity  of  Jesus.  The  first  temptation  explains  the  facts  of  the  economic 
poverty  and  humble  social  position  of  Jesus.  They  were  the  result  of  a 
deliberate  choice  and  as  such  did  not  invalidate  his  messianic  claim. 
The  second  temptation  addresses  itself  to  the  pressing  problem  as  to  why 
Jesus  did  not  set  up  a  messianic  kingdom  on  earth.  Again  we  find  that 
it  was  a  voluntary  renunciation  and  that  such  a  procedure  was  deliber- 
ately rejected  as  not  in  accordance  with  his  plan.  The  failure  of  Jesus 
to  reveal  himself  as  a  supernatural  being  endowed  with  messianic  powers 
was  perplexing  to  many  Jewish  minds.  To  give  an  explanation  of  this 
we  have  the  third  temptation,  in  which  such  a  miraculous  display  as 
would  convince  the  skeptical  is  definitely  refused.  All  these  questions 
were  difficult  and  troublesome  ones  for  the  early  Christians  as  they 
pressed  the  messianic  claims  of  their  Lord  and  were  met  by  the  scofiing 
queries  of  the  Jews.  The  answer  of  the  temptation  story  is  that  all  the 
things  which  the  Jews  expected  in  their  messianic  king  were  within  the 
power  and  grasp  of  Jesus,  but  in  obedience  to  a  higher  ideal  and  another 
purpose  he  had  risen  superior  to  their  allurements,  and  was  so  much 
greater  than  any  messiah  hitherto  imagined.  Again  we  have  the  interest 
of  enhancing  the  person  and  official  function  of  Jesus. 

591 


74  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

At  the  end  of  the  narrative  a  word  is  added  which  indicates  the 
ubiquitous  practical  interest  of  the  early  church:  "And  when  the  devil 
had  completed  every  temptation  he  departed  from  him  for  a  season." 
This  not  only  shows  the  completeness  of  the  victory  of  Jesus  over 
hostile  forces  and  thus  serves  to  demonstrate  his  superiority  to  them, 
but  it  would  be  an  exceedingly  useful  word  for  the  encouragement 
of  Christians  in  the  times  of  stress  and  testing  which  were  frequent 
in  the  early  Christian  community.  It  would  be  heartening  to  recall 
that  the  "head  of  the  church"  had  been  "tempted  in  all  points"  and 
had  endured. 

The  story  of  the  rejection  at  Nazareth  as  related  in  Luke  4:16-30 
has  likewise  a  christological  interest,  although  there  is  a  difference  in 
emphasis  from  the  preceding.  It  represents  the  mission  of  Jesus  as  a 
preaching  one  and  sets  forth  his  task  as  that  of  a  prophet.  Importance 
is  attached  to  the  announcement  of  good  tidings  and  the  mediation  of 
spiritual  blessings.  It  is  the  "  words  of  grace  "  which  impress  the  people, 
and  as  a  prophetic  preacher  he  makes  his  appeal  to  his  fellow-townsmen. 
However,  the  demonstration  of  his  prophetic  mission  is  not  all.  He 
definitely  assumes  the  title  of  prophet  in  vs.  24,  but  in  vs.  23  the  testi- 
mony of  his  mighty  works  finds  expression.'  The  christological  interest 
of  this  paragraph,  then,  has  two  sides:  the  supreme  message  of  the 
blessings  of  God  to  men  constitutes  a  credential  of  Jesus,  and  the  marvel- 
ous works  which  had  attended  his  ministry  show  his  unique  power  and 
personality.  In  our  discussion  of  the  development  of  christological 
thought  in  the  early  church  in  the  preceding  section  we  saw  that  both 
these  phases  had  a  place. 

In  the  latter  part  of  this  narrative  the  missionary  interest  issues. 
The  rejection  of  Jesus  at  Nazareth  has  its  counterpart  in  the  larger 
rejection  of  him  by  the  Jewish  people  when  he  is  presented  to  them  as 
their  Messiah  by  the  Christians.  The  two  striking  instances  of  the 
blessing  of  Israel's  God  being  bestowed  on  non-Jews  in  the  early  prophetic 
time  could  be  used  with  telling  effect  in  the  struggle  of  Christianity  to 

'  It  is  possible  that  vs.  23  may  be  a  Lukan  addition  to  the  source  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Mark  6:2.  The  position  of  the  story  of  the  rejection  at  Nazareth  in  Luke  is 
much  earlier  than  that  of  Mark,  who  represents  Jesus  as  having  done  many  mighty 
works  in  Capernaum  before  his  experience  at  Nazareth.  In  Luke,  however,  apart 
from  4: 23,  there  is  no  mention  of  Capernaum  until  4:31,  and  the  writer  may  have  felt 
it  necessary  to  insert  something  to  approximate  the  Markan  situation.  If  this  view 
is  taken  we  shall  have  to  modify  our  statement  to  the  extent  that  there  is  but  one  type 
of  christological  representation  in  this  paragraph,  namely,  the  prophetic.  But  this 
will  in  no  way  affect  the  argument  regarding  the  whole  section. 

592 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN   LUKE  75 

break  the  bonds  of  its  early  nationalism.  This  function  is  so  obvious 
as  not  to  require  argument. 

The  peculiar  material  of  Luke  is  broken  at  4:30  by  Markan  material, 
only  to  be  resumed  in  5:1.  The  section  5:1-11  is  instructive  from  our 
point  of  approach.  The  preaching  mission  of  Jesus  is  reflected  in  the 
opening  verse,  but  this  is  passed  by  rapidly  in  order  to  give  attention 
to  another  phase  of  his  activity.  The  interest  which  centers  in  the 
calling  of  the  disciples  tends  to  obscure  the  important  part  this  section 
could  play  in  demonstrating  the  supernatural  knowledge  of  Jesus  and  his 
control  over  natural  forces.  The  accuracy  of  his  knowledge  and  the 
immediacy  of  results  impress  Simon  Peter  (the  church  leader  of  the  early 
days)  with  a  sense  of  the  uniqueness  and  superiority  of  Jesus.  The  form 
of  apostolic  commission  which  appears  here  is  worthy  of  notice.  This 
statement  of  their  consecration  to  a  task  by  Jesus  himself  and  their 
immediate  devotion  to  it  and  to  his  person  would  be  of  inestimable  value 
in  establishing  the  position  of  the  apostles  as  leaders  in  the  church.  The 
point  of  importance  in  this  paragraph  is  that  it  is  dominated  throughout 
by  christological  thought.  It  sets  forth  Jesus  as  the  one  who  has  a 
marvelous  and  immediate  control  over  both  nature  and  men. 

The  rest  of  this  peculiarly  Lukan  material  is  found  in  7:1 — 8:3  and 
is  strongly  marked  with  a  general  christological  interest.  The  first  part 
of  the  chapter  concerns  itself  with  the  request  of  a  certain  centurion 
that  Jesus  would  heal  a  servant  who  was  at  the  point  of  death.  In  view 
of  the  gospel  representation  of  Jesus  as  a  doer  of  mighty  works  there  is 
nothing  strange  in  such  a  request,  but  some  of  the  details  of  the  story 
are  very  striking.  The  relations  existing  between  the  centurion  and 
the  elders  of  the  Jews,  the  entreaty  of  the  latter  to  Jesus  to  respond  to 
the  request  made,  especially  taken  in  comparison  with  the  balder  account 
of  Matt.  8:5-13,  may  suggest  an  attempt  at  mediation  between  the 
military  class,  the  elders,  and  the  Christians.  Much  more  important, 
however,  is  the  attitude  toward  Jesus  which  the  officer  is  represented  as 
assuming.  If  a  Roman  officer  showed  his  respect  and  esteem  to  Jesus 
while  Jesus  was  living  it  would  make  excellent  apologetic  material  to  the 
military  class  in  the  Christian  propaganda.  There  is  here  a  recognition 
of  the  supremacy,  the  authority,  and  the  dignity  of  Jesus  on  the  part  of 
this  centurion  such  as  is  scarcely  met  with  elsewhere  in  our  records. 
This  acknowledgment  of  these  characteristics  and  its  tacit  acceptance 
by  Jesus  would  serve  to  demonstrate  in  an  excellent  manner  to  any 
questioning  group  the  right  of  Jesus  to  the  office  and  honors  claimed  for 
him  by  the  church.     It  could  be  used  with  telling  effect  with  the  upper 

593 


76  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

classes.  The  second  striking  thing  that  emerges  is  the  wonderful  power 
of  Jesus,  whose  word  is  able  to  heal  even  at  a  distance.  This  unique 
ability  is  clearly  understood  by  this  suppliant  non-Jew.  The  surprising 
attitude  of  the  centurion  opens  the  way  for  the  comments  of  Jesus  on  the 
quality  and  magnitude  of  the  faith  exercised  toward  him.  It  is  superior 
to  anything  that  has  been  found  among  the  people  who  should  have  been 
its  most  noteworthy  exponents.  This  comparison  of  the  faith  manifested 
by  Israel  and  by  the  Roman  fits  such  a  situation  as  that  brought  about 
by  the  conversion  of  Cornelius.^  If  this  tradition  were  current  at  that 
time,  one  cannot  fail  to  wonder  at  the  difi&culty  which  Peter  experienced 
in  meeting  the  situation,  a  difficulty  so  great  as  to  necessitate  a  vision. 
Moreover,  how  was  it  that  the  church  so  stubbornly  resisted  the  admis- 
sion of  Gentiles  in  the  face  of  this  example  of  the  Master  ?  Is  it  possible 
that  the  tradition  crystallized  first  in  such  a  situation  ?  In  this  sec^tion 
we  find  again  the  twofold  interest  of  showing  the  superiority  of  Jesus  and 
of  supporting  the  larger  mission  of  Christianity. 

The  paragraph  containing  the  narrative  of  the  raising  of  the  son  of 
the  widow  of  Nain  has  given  rise  to  some  discussion.  Many  hold  the 
opinion  that  it  is  a  stray  tradition  inserted  here  by  Luke  to  justify  the 
statement  of  vs.  22,  "the  dead  are  raised  up."^  It  is  quite  true  that  it 
affords  a  basis  for  that  remark,  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  its 
insertion  is  due  to  the  author  of  the  Third  Gospel.  The  interest  which 
the  paragraph  displays  is  in  such  harmony  with  the  general  interest  of  the 
whole  chapter,  and  in  fact  of  the  whole  of  this  peculiar  material  which 
we  are  considering  here,  that  there  are  strong  grounds  for  considering  it 
an  integral  part  of  a  source  which  the  author  is  here  using.  Even  if  it 
is  to  be  regarded  as  incorporated  for  the  purpose  above  indicated,  there 
is  no  reason  whatever  for  delaying  its  insertion  till  the  time  of  Luke.^ 

'  Acts,  chap.  10. 

2  Cf.  Johannes  Weiss,  Die  Schriflcn  des  Neiieri  Testamenls,  I,  44S-49. 

3  The  omission  of  the  story  of  the  raising  of  the  widow's  son  by  Matthew  has  been 
thought  to  be  evidence  against  its  being  in  the  source  which  Luke  and  Matthew  used. 
This,  of  course,  assumes  identity  of  source  for  these  two  writers.  Granting  this,  is 
there  any  reason  why  Matthew  should  omit  it  if  it  were  present  ?  He  has  copied  Luke 
7:1-10,  with  the  omission  of  vss.  3-60,  fairly  closely  in  Matt.  8:5-10,  13.  The  next 
levy  on  this  source  is  made  in  Matt.  1 1 :  29,  where  the  question  of  the  Baptist  with  Jesus' 
answer  and  tribute  are  recorded.  In  this  he  follows  Luke  7: 18-3S  with  considerable 
accuracy.  But  between  chaps.  8  and  11  Matthew  has  recorded  the  raising  of  Jairus' 
daughter,  which  furnishes  a  basis  for  the  statement  in  the  reply  of  Jesus,  "the  dead  are 
raised  up."  When  we  recall  that  Matthew  omits  the  story  of  the  anointing  of  Jesus 
by  the  penitent  woman  in  the  house  of  Simon,  Luke  7 :  36-50,  perhaps  because  he  takes 

594 


SOME   NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  77 

The  alternative  is  that  the  author  is  eclectic  and  is  piecing  together  tra- 
ditions as  his  work  progresses.  There  are  very  grave  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  acceptance  of  this  view. 

The  incident  shows  a  progress  of  thought  when  compared  with  that 
of  the  healing  of  the  centurion's  servant,  where  Jesus  is  represented  as 
possessing  power  over  disease.  Here  his  power  and  supremacy  are 
heightened  so  that  he  has  control  of,  and  power  over,  death.  The 
ascription  to  Jesus  the  Messiah  of  such  a  power  would  leave  little  to  be 
desired.  In  this  connection  it  is  of  interest  to  note  the  manner  in  which 
Paul  grapples  with  the  problem  of  the  relation  of  the  glorified  Christ 
to  death  and  the  application  of  his  thought  to  the  resurrection.'  The 
effect  of  this  mighty  work  on  the  people  of  Nain  is  worthy  of  considera- 
tion. It  is  the  prophetic  character  of  the  work  of  Jesus  which  seems  to 
have  impressed  them.  To  them  the  power  and  function  of  this  man  were 
those  of  a  divinely  sent  and  controlled  prophet.  They  did  not  ascribe 
the  power  to  do  the  mighty  work  to  the  person  who  stood  before  them,  but 
to  God  who  had  visited  his  people.^"  As  in  the  other  material,  we  notice 
here  a  dominating  christological  interest. 

The  question  of  the  Baptist,  with  the  answer  and  accompanying 
eulogy  of  Jesus,  has  been  discussed  above,  so  we  pass  to  a  consideration  of 
the  incidents  of  the  dinner  in  the  house  of  the  Pharisee.^  The  narrative 
shows  the  superiority  of  Jesus  to  legal  scrupulosity  in  his  refusal  to  recog- 
nize the  uncleanness  of  the  touch  of  the  sinful  woman.  This  tradition 
would  be  of  assistance  in  emphasizing  the  authority  of  Jesus  over  legal 
enactments  and  would  help  to  cut  the  Gordian  knot  of  the  relation  of 
Christianity  to  the  law.  It  would  likewise  serve  to  break  down  the 
prejudice  of  Jewish  Christians  in  working  among  such  people.  But 
these  interests  are  minor  ones  in  this  connection.  The  Pharisee  is  repre- 
sented as  doubting  the  prophetic  ability  of  Jesus  because  of  his  failure  to 
recognize  the  character  of  the  woman  who  anointed  him.  Jesus  appears 
in  the  best  possible  light  when  he  shows  not  only  that  he  is  aware  of  the 

over  from  Mark  14:3-9  in  a  later  chapter  a  somewhat  similar  story,  we  may  conclude 
that  even  if  he  is  using  an  identical  source  he  is  not  binding  himself  to  an  absolute  use, 
but  is  using  selective  powers.  I  am  not  able  to  see  that  the  omission  of  Luke  7:11-17 
by  Matthew  is  in  any  way  proof  that  it  was  not  in  the  source  Luke  had  before  him. 
The  explanation  lies  in  the  difference  of  arrangement  of  material. 
'  I  Thess.  4:13  ff.;  I  Cor.,  chap.  15;  Rom.  8:1  ff. 

2  Some  have  seen  in  several  details  of  this  narrative  striking  similarities  to  the 
accounts  of  the  raising  of  the  dead  ascribed  to  Elijah  and  Elisha  in  I  Kings  7 : 1 7-24  and 
II  Kings  4: 17-37;  cf.  Peine,  Eine  vorkanonische  Uberlieferung  des  Liikas,  p.  40. 

3  Luke  7 :  36-50. 

595 


78  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

type  of  woman  who  has  come  to  him,  but  also  he  is  quite  cognizant  of 
the  thoughts  which  are  passing  through  the  mind  of  his  host.  The 
supernatural  knowledge  of  Jesus  is  clearly  exhibited  in  the  conversation 
which  follows.  This  is  a  phase  of  the  superiority  of  Jesus  which  con- 
stantly characterizes  this  material.  The  same  christological  tendency 
is  seen  in  the  statements  regarding  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  There  is  no 
hesitancy  on  the  part  of  Jesus  to  pronounce  pardon,  nor  does  he  appeal 
to  external  authority.  How  great  an  assumption  of  official  dignity  and 
superiority  this  was  in  the  eyes  of  contemporaries  is  reflected  in  the  sur- 
prise of  the  query,  "Who  is  this  that  forgiveth  sins?"  There  are  prac- 
tical interests  discernible  throughout  the  paragraph,  but  they  contain 
nothing  new  and  are  decidedly  secondary  to  the  dominating  motive  of 
the  exaltation  of  Jesus  to  a  unique  position  of  power  and  authority. 

The  short  section  8 : 1-3  is  of  an  entirely  different  type  and  probably 
does  not  belong  to  the  source.  If  it  does,  it  is  a  vagrant  tradition  which 
has  attached  itself  to  what  was  originally  a  separate  document.  Its 
function  in  the  Third  Gospel  is  merely  connective.  If  we  should  look  for 
an  interest  which  is  served  by  it,  it  would  be  found  in  the  communistic 
or  ministrative  idea,  which  would  be  of  value  in  urging  support  for  those 
missionaries  who  devoted  themselves  to  the  work  of  the  gospel. 

We  have  now  passed  in  review  the  material  which  is  peculiar  to  Luke 
in  these  chapters,  3-8,  and  it  remains  to  gather  the  main  facts  and  to 
draw  from  them  their  legitimate  inferences.  We  have  found  imbedded 
in  the  sixth  chapter  what,  on  grounds  of  obvious  direction,  function,  and 
literary  style,  may  be  considered  a  separate  written  source  which  the 
author  of  the  Third  Gospel  has  incorporated  practically  unchanged  in 
his  work.  It  was  probably  a  sermon,  or  the  digest  of  a  sermon,  which 
appealed  so  strongly  to  its  hearers  and  performed  such  valuable  service 
that  it  was  preserved  in  this  form  for  wider  use.  There  seems  to  be 
justification  for  the  theory  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Plain  constituted  a 
separate  source  for  our  author.  Its  date  and  place  of  origin  are  quite 
similar  to  those  of  the  material  of  Luke  9:51 — 18:14. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  remaining  material  we  are  conscious 
of  a  different  thought-atmosphere,  and,  in  fact,  a  different  literary  atmos- 
phere, as  well.  The  discourse-material  no  longer  predominates,  but 
occupies  a  secondary  place  to  the  narrative.  The  practical  interest,  in 
the  strict  meaning  of  that  phrase,  appears  only  occasionally.  In  its 
place  we  have  a  controlling  theological  interest.  We  have  noted  the 
occurrence  of  a  Baptist  tradition.  This  has  been  brought  into  align- 
ment with  the  chief  interest  of  the  source,  and  there  is  ground  for  the 

596 


SOME    NON-MARKAN   ELEMENTS   IN    LUKE  ^  7'9' 

opinion  that  a  careful  combination  of  literary  and  historical  criticism 
could  restore  to  us  part  of  a  Johannine  tradition  which  did  not  represent 
its  hero  as  secondary  to  Jesus.'  This  does  not  concern  us  deeply  here, 
for  this  Johannine  material  had  been  absorbed  in  the  general  interest  and 
incorporated  in  the  source  before  it  reached  the  hand  of  the  author  of  our 
gospel.  The  overwhelming  interest  of  this  material  has  been  christo- 
logical.  Throughout  its  various  sections  we  have  detected  the  purpose 
of  indicating  and  demonstrating  the  superiority  of  Jesus.  At  one  time 
he  is  the  mighty  prophet  who  by  word  and  deed  impresses  those  who 
hear  his  gracious  words  with  a  due  sense  of  his  unique  greatness.  At 
other  times  he  is  the  supreme  Lord  over  the  forces  of  nature,  of  life,  and 
of  death,  as  in  the  healing  of  the  centurion's  servant,  the  raising  of  the 
widow's  son,  the  miracles  in  the  presence  of  John's  messengers,  and  the 
great  draught  of  fishes.  In  the  realm  of  knowledge  which  is  beyond 
ordinary  ken  he  walks  serene  and  undisturbed.  His  supernatural 
knowledge  enables  him  to  detect  the  character  and  hidden  thoughts  of 
his  fellows,  and  to  be  conversant  with  the  secret  workings  of  nature.  His 
control  over  men  is  such  that  a  word  from  him  is  sufficient  to  change  the 
course  of  their  lives.^  Every  ascription  of  superiority,  supremacy,  or 
dignity  Jesus  is  made  to  accept  as  his  right,  and,  on  more  than  one  occa- 
sion, actually  claims  it.  It  would  then  appear  that  what  we  have  here 
is  a  document  with  the  definite  interest  of  meeting  the  difficulties  which 
confronted  the  early  church  when  it  attempted  to  demonstrate  the  mes- 
sianic office,  dignity,  and  power  of  Jesus  while  he  was  on  earth.  If  his 
failure  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  common  messianic  ideal  was 
opposed  to  the  claim  of  his  followers,  they  replied  in  the  story  of  the 
temptation  that  a  different  purpose  involved  a  voluntary  refusal  of  the 
exercise  of  such  powers  and  activities.  If  his  humble  and  obscure  career 
formed  the  basis  of  a  taunt  or  became  a  stumbling-block  to  earnest 
seekers,  his  splendid  message  of  divine  blessing  and  love  as  well  as  his 
mighty  works  would  be  adduced  as  marks  of  his  personal  greatness  and 
demonstrations  of  his  high  position.  In  short,  we  have  here  a  document 
which  was  a  christological  polemic.  To  discover  its  provenance  we  need 
only  recall  the  place  where  the  battle  for  the  messianic  claims  of  Jesus 

'  On  the  whole  question  of  the  existence  of  a  document  devoted  to  John  the  Baptist 
which  has,  at  least  in  part,  been  incorporated  in  Luke,  and  on  the  question  of  the  per- 
sistence of  a  Johannine  sect  which  attempted  to  rival  the  Christian  movement,  cf. 
Clayton  R.  Bowen,  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology,  XVI,  90-106;  cf.  also  Balden- 
sperger,  Prolog  des  vierlen  Evangeliums;  E.  F.  Scott,  The  Fourth  Gospel,  pp.  77-86. 

^  Luke  5:10-11. 

597 


80  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC    STUDIES 

was  first  fought.  It  was  in  Jerusalem  that  the  apostles  first  set  him  forth 
as  Messiah ;  it  was  there  also  that  they  met  with  stern  opposition  from  the 
religious  leaders  of  the  people  who  would  have  been  seriously  com- 
promised by  any  general  acceptance  of  the  messianic  character  of  Jesus. 
Moreover,  it  was  in  Jerusalem  that,  in  response  to  various  objections  to 
ascribing  this  office  to  Jesus  on  the  part  of  Jewish  opponents  who  knew 
the  career  of  Jesus,  the  first  advances  in  christological  thinking  were 
made.  If  we  were  right  in  the  sketch  of  christological  development 
given  in  a  previous  section,^  we  are  in  a  position  to  give  a  relative  date 
to  this  document.  There  we  saw  that  the  adoptionist  Christology  was 
followed  by  a  phase  which  gradually  thrust  the  messianic  task  and  dignity 
back  into  the  earthly  career  of  Jesus  and  which  seized  upon  various  tra- 
ditions to  support  its  claim.  The  prophetic  aspect  of  his  work,  based 
on  the  promise  of  a  "prophet  like  unto  Moses,"  preceded  that  of  Jesus 
as  a  doer  of  messianic  mighty  works.  In  the  Perean  section  we  found 
the  former  representation  predominating;  here  we  have  both  aspects, 
that  of  the  possessor  and  wielder  of  miraculous  power  being  the  more 
prominent.  While  the  impossibility  of  distinguishing  sharply  in  period 
between  various  phases  is  freely  admitted,  for  there  is  high  probability 
that  different  conceptions  coexisted,  yet  a  general  chronological  arrange- 
ment may  be  claimed.  So,  then,  there  is  reason  for  placing  the  crystal- 
lization of  these  traditions  and  probably  their  collection  into  documentary 
form  at  that  time  when  the  emphasis  on  "mighty  works"  was  beginning 
to  force  the  prophetic  representation  into  a  secondary  place.  This 
would  be  somewhat  later  than  the  material  of  Luke  9:51 — 18:14,  but 
earlier  than  Mark,  for  in  the  Second  Gospel  we  have  the  emphasis  on 
the  miraculous  highly  developed  and  the  annunciation  of  messianic 
office  to  Jesus  at  his  baptism. 

Thus  our  study  of  this  Lukan  material  has  led  us  to  these  conclusions : 
Luke  is  using  at  least  three  sources,  besides  Mark,  in  these  chapters. 
There  is,  first,  the  material  which  he  has  incorporated  en  bloc  in  9:51 — 
18:14;  second,  there  is  the  Sermon  on  the  Plain,  which  we  consider  a 
separate  source;  and  third,  there  is  the  christological  document  scattered 
throughout  chaps.  3,  4,  5,  7.  The  first  and  third  of  these  sources  are 
manifestly  composite  and  had  doubtless  a  literary  history  before  they 
reached  the  hand  of  the  author  of  the  Third  Gospel.  They  are  all 
Palestinian  in  origin  and  the  evidence  points  with  some  clearness  to 
Jerusalem  as  the  place  where  they  assumed  documentary  form.  Their 
probable  dates  have  been  indicated  in  the  course  of  the  discussion. 

'  Cf .  pp.  49  ff- 

598 


TH.S  BOOK  ^N^TH^  OAT/nn.""^  ^°  "^"''N 
WILL  iNCREASE  TO  sS  ci,?.  o  """^  PENALTY 
•^AY    AND    TO    $;  GO    o^.    JwV^  J"^  •'^"''TH 


LD21-l00m-7,'40  (6936s) 


[. 


?3 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


r 


